Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims? [Archive] - Page 5

thewholesoul

2nd January 2008, 01:50 PM

no, by asking the question it makes you look far worse

how is anyone supposed to know exactly what heat source or spark caused the fireball to ignite? it is a nigh on impossibility to know 100% what caused it

it is easier to know what did not cause it, but unfortunately you cannot even get this correct

you really are off the deep end pal, you really are making a fool of yourself

i beg to differ my firend.

the simple question was asked "what caused the jet fuel to ignite"? this is an extremely important and relevant question because whatever caused the jet fuel to ignite is responsible for the "explosion" experienced by over 20 people in the basment.

now two explanations were suggested by grravy. (a) flamming debris and (b) sparks.

the first causal explanation is absurd. how could the burning debris make it all the way down to b2-3 level without igniting jet fuel all the way down? it makes no sense. but maybe it did happen - in that case an experiment should be conducted in order to prove that it can happen.

the second causal explanation is ambiguous. what caused the sparks? an intact elevator shaft does not produce "sparks" randomly out of nowhere. this would be hazardous and i seriously doubt that an elevator shaft would be certified if it was randomly producing "sparks" out of nowhere. if you cannot provide an adequate explanation as to what caused the sparks then it must be abandoned. and if or when you find somethhing that could plausibly have produced a spark then we could experiment with this and jet fuel to determine whether it can ignite descending jet fuel.

now you ask "how is anyone supposed to know exactly what heat source or spark caused the fireball to ignite?"

so here we find a new causal explanation being introduced - "heat". please explain to me what was the heat source that ignited the jet fuel and was located within the elevator shaft of b2-3 level in both tower 1 and 2. and if you find a heat source then we should make an experiment to prove whether such a heat source can ignite descending jet fuel.

perhaps you dont need to know exactly what caused the fireball - but i do expect NIST to know. after all they claim to know exactly what happened to the fireproofing and core columns, trusses et cetera. ok, it may not have been part of their investigation but that does not mean that whatever caused the "explosion" in the basement should not or could not be investigated.

now whatever reason provided must make a little sense, just a little. it makes perfect sense that jet fuel could ignite and explode, it makes perfect sense that flamming debris could ignite jet fuel but it does not make sense that this could happen in the basement.

to beleive that it does one needs to believe that a buring piece of debris fell down the elevator shaft then slipped past the space between the elevator and elevator shaft without igniting any fuel that may be there and then after passing the elevator shaft it explodes at the b2-3 level in both tower 1 and 2. it sounds a bit like the magic bullet theory in JFK.

now if it was actually the cause then we should be able to reproduce the effect somehow through experimentation in order to prove that flamming debris igniting jet fuel did cause the explosion in the basement.

if flamming debris, sparks of an unknown origin, and heat from an unknown source, are claimed to be responsible for igniting the jet fuel in the b2-3 basement then all these hypothesis need to be explained and proven.

here is a cool video on youtube which demonstrates how a thermate reaction produces sparks and heat and explodes when in contact with fuel.

i do not beleive that i look foolish by asking simple questions that you are unable to answer.

these questions are extremely relevant for those who defend the official hypothesis and for those who do not. they are extremely relevant to the topic in this thread. and if you cannot find the answers in the gospel according to NIST that only proves that there is still areas that could be investigated. and just because you cannot find an answer to a simple question it does not give you the right to resort to personal insults or belittling of my question. any objective reader would soon realise that your negative and unproductive responses reflect poorly on you not me.

Gravy

2nd January 2008, 02:01 PM

thewholesoul

2nd January 2008, 02:07 PM

these idiots have to go back to freaking elementary school. the first thing they TEACH you about FIRE safety is that you need three ingredients to start a fire: FUEL, OXYGEN and HEAT! there was a hell a lot of fuel! A TON of oxygen and damn, those planes are the SOURCE of the heat!

so the jet fuel according to you ignited without a spark, or flamming debris??

the "explosion" in the basement according to you was produced from jet fuel that was heated by the plane impact.

were you not thought in elementary school that a hot solid or liquid will decrease in energy (i.e. heat) the further it moves away from the source of its energy???

i am not sure but i would expect jet fuel to evaporate when heated not to spontaneously explode in the absense of some kind of ignition while it happens to be cooling as it descends through the air further away from the heat source.

phunk

2nd January 2008, 02:25 PM

thewholesoul

2nd January 2008, 02:38 PM

This summary is only based on accounts I collected for and included in my Rodriguez paper.
Bold floor numbers indicate multiple reports for those floors.

64 people on 43 levels below the impact zones reported smelling or contacting jet fuel/kerosene on these floors

North Tower: 87, 85, 83, 81, 78, 63, 62, 60, 57, 53, 52, 47, 46, 40, 39, 36, 35, 34, 33, 29, 27, 25, 13, 12, 9, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, Plaza level, Concourse, B1, B6, and one unknown floor.

South Tower: 75, 74, 68, 61, 40, 25, Plaza Level, Concourse.

33 people on 18 levels below the impact zones reported seeing fireballs coming from elevator shafts or down hallways

North Tower: 91, 88, 85, 83, 82, 81, 78, 77, 7, Plaza Level, Concourse, B1, B4, Basement (unknown level).

South Tower: 75, 70, Plaza level, Concourse.

29 people on 19 levels below the impact zones described fires on these floors

North Tower: 89, 88, 85, 83, 81, 78, 77, 72, 53, 46, 45, 22, 4, Plaza level, Concourse, Unknown upper levels.

South Tower: 50, Concourse.

49 people on 23 levels below the impact zones reported seeing elevators/shaft doors blown out or severely damaged.
North Tower: 89, 88, 86, 85, 83, 82, 81, 78, 77, 45, 22, 3, Plaza Level, Concourse, B1, B4, Basement (unknown levels).

South Tower: 78, 74, 44, Concourse, one unknown level.

8 people on 4 levels below the impact zones were burned in elevators and survived (does not include ST 78th floor)

North Tower: 78, Concourse, B1.

South Tower: Concourse.

14 people on 9 levels below the impact zones survived burns or other injuries from blasts from elevator shafts

North Tower: 89, 88, 85, 83, 78, Concourse, B1, B4, B6.

26 people on 17 levels below the impact zones reported fallen elevators (11 were in the elevators and survived).

North Tower: 91, 88, 78, 47, 42, 27, 15, 7, Concourse, B1, B4, Basement (unknown level), Unknown upper levels.

South Tower: 19, 12, Concourse.

13 (non-deaf) people on 12 levels below the impact zone didn’t hear the aircraft impact/explosion on their building

North Tower: 88, 81, 72, 62, 60, 50, 35, 34, 28, 8, Concourse, B6.

50 people on 31 levels below the impact zones described significant secondary damage (walls down, doors jammed, broken pipes, stairwells disintegrating, etc. Not intended to suggest structural damage.)

North Tower: 88, 85, 83, 82, 81, 78, 77, 76, 74, 72, 71, 68, 63, 40, 30, 29, 22, 21, Plaza level, Concourse, B1, B4, B6, Basement (level unknown)

South Tower: 76, 70, 68, 67, 40, Plaza level, Concourse.

nice post grravy.

but lacking is an explanation how burning debris could ignite the jet fuel in the basment. lacking is an explanation as to what caused the "alleged" sparks that ignited the jet fuel.

there is no-one in this forum that believes that fireballs were not present in the building. but what caused the fireballs? was it fuel deflagration which if i am not mistaken requires some kind of ignition? or was it caused by a thermite reaction? as you can see demonstrated by experiment in the following link Re: 9/11 Debate: Loose Change vs. Popular Mechanics pt. 1 thermite can ignite fuel and cause an explosion.

so how about it grravy...any word on the cause behind the explosion in the basement or would you prefer to hide behind the testimony of fireballs which no-one here is disputing.

perhaps not being an expert on anything you could answer the question honestly and say - i dont know - what caused the jet fuel to ignite 90+ floors below the impact. that the explanations you did provide were only an educated guess that once we subject to critical reasoning seem to fall apart as quickly as you came up with them.

Gravy

2nd January 2008, 02:40 PM

Lurker

2nd January 2008, 02:53 PM

Gravy

2nd January 2008, 03:07 PM

But Gravy, TWS has challenged you to find the one true source of the spark. Not just list possibilities. He expects you to commit to one source and only one source as if you were remote viewing the elevator shaft and could actually see what happened. IT is completely beyond the point that myriad possibilities exist. TWS needs the one true source.

At the risk of being quote-mined I submit "I don't know what caused the spark that ignited the fireball...but there was no dearth of legitimate sources." I was helpful to 911 truthers that want to misquote me, they can cut my quote off at the "...".
He can challenge away: I've had him on ignore for a while. One thing's for sure: that kid needs a spark in a bad way.

You will probably be quoted as, "I don't know what caused...the fireball...no...legitimate sources."

thewholesoul

2nd January 2008, 04:02 PM

There are lots of ignition sources that are perfectly safe in normal everyday operation but not safe in an atmosphere loaded with fuel.

Just about every type of electrical switch, from the light switch on the wall to a relay turning on the light to indicate what floor the elevator is on, will produce a spark as it switches. Expensive environmentally sealed switches are needed in any environment where there are possible explosive vapors.

Electric motors in just about any mechanical device produce sparks. How do you think those elevator doors open? Electric motors.

A piece of debris falling down the elevator shaft and hitting the concrete floor at the bottom could produce a spark.

A falling elevator with its emergency break engaged can produce sparks.

A hot light bulb with jet fuel splashed on it could shatter, and ignite the fuel.

There are hundreds of possible ignition sources, no need to list them all. In fact it would be amazing if you could pour jet fuel down an elevator shaft and NOT have it find an ignition source.

First of all i want to thank you for your reply. It was well thought out and contained no insults or slurs. [QUOTE=phunk;3296556]

[QUOTE=phunk;3296556]There are lots of ignition sources that are perfectly safe in normal everyday operation but not safe in an atmosphere loaded with fuel.

How many ignition sources are there exactly? You claim there are hundreds but i would be sceptical of this claim. I do not expect and would never demand that you produce a list either as there are other ways solve this issue.

Just about every type of electrical switch, from the light switch on the wall to a relay turning on the light to indicate what floor the elevator is on, will produce a spark as it switches. Expensive environmentally sealed switches are needed in any environment where there are possible explosive vapors.

Electric motors in just about any mechanical device produce sparks. How do you think those elevator doors open? Electric motors.

You suggest three possible ignition points for the jet fuel.

1- Light switches on the wall are not inside the elevator shaft. They are either inside the elevator itself or outside the elevator shaft. Because the occupants inside the freight elevator did not report a fireball inside their elevator then this explanation should be abandoned. Because the jet fuel exploded below the freight elevator before it arrived at the basement level this explanation should be abandoned. Because the jet fuel could only travel down the elevator shaft and not stop and take a left passing a closed door to reach light switches on the wall outside the elevator shaft this explanation must be abandoned for the simple reason the jet fuel had no access to the light switches outside the elevator shaft. but if my assumption is wrong and there are light switches inside the elevator shafts thatn i am assuming that they are covered and that the jet fuel that reached the b2-3 level was in liquid not vapor form.

2 - you then mention the light that indicates what floor the elevator is on. Again these lights are either inside the elevator itself or outside the elevator shaft. Thus for the same reaosns above this explanation must be abandoned.

3 - When elevator doors open an electronic motor produces sparks. I agree but you will agree that it only produces sparks when the elevator door is actually opening. because we know that people were still inside the descending freight elevator car we know that the doors to the freight elevator could not have been opening. Elevator doors only open when the elevator arrives and stops at that floor. So if the jet fuel ignited from an elevator door opening but we know that elevator doors at b2-3 were not opening because the freight elevator had not yet arrived then we must abandon this explanation.

There is another thing you mentioned that is worth noting. You say that “Expensive environmentally sealed switches are needed in any environment where there are possible explosive vapors.” I agree but if you are claiming that “vapor” descended 90+floors and then exploded then you must explain how “vapor” can descend. “vapor” will naturally behave more like a gas. It seems more plausible to me that jet fuel in a “liquid state” fell down the elevator shaft.

A piece of debris falling down the elevator shaft and hitting the concrete floor at the bottom could produce a spark.

The floor at the bottom of the towers was at B6 which is 3-4 levels below where the explosion was reported to have occured. Can sparks jump up 3-4 levels? Besides no explosion was reported to have had occured at the b6 level.

Can falling debris – consisting of concrete produce a "spark" when it collides with a concrete floor? I dont think so. I dont even think that steel could produce a spark from colliding with a concrete floor.

A falling elevator with its emergency break engaged can produce sparks.

I am very glad you mentioned this. If indeed the emergency breaks of a falling elevator can poduce sparks then why did the jet fuel not ignite and obliterate the fright elevator car which was using its emergency breaks for several floors?

A hot light bulb with jet fuel splashed on it could shatter, and ignite the fuel.

I have to say i would be sceptical of this. But let us assume that liquid fuel when splashed onto a hot light bulb will shatter the light bulb. Where is the light bulb? Is it inside the elevator shaft or outside the elevator shaft? We know there are light bulbs inside the elevator but that does not serve your purpose. if the light bulbs are inside the elevator shaft it would also depend on what type of light bulb it is. but i dont know whether light bulbs were inside and exposed within the elevator shaft.

There are hundreds of possible ignition sources, no need to list them all. In fact it would be amazing if you could pour jet fuel down an elevator shaft and NOT have it find an ignition source.

This is why i love science. According to you it is impoosible that jet fuel pouring down an elevator shaft will not find an ignition source. I disagree.

Now the best way to settle this is to conduct some kind of experiment to prove whether or not your assumption is true or not. I would expect that jet fuel will not find an ignition source in an elevator shaft. Now through the scientfic method we could settle this issue.

If the jet fuel did find an ignition source i would be proven wrong and i would automatically abandon the explosives in the basement hypothesis. But what would you believe if the jet fuel did not find an ignition source after 100 trials?

phunk

2nd January 2008, 05:00 PM

How many ignition sources are there exactly? You claim there are hundreds but i would be sceptical of this claim. I do not expect and would never demand that you produce a list either as there are other ways solve this issue.
Nor was I trying to give an exhaustive list. Just some of the possibilities.

1- Light switches on the wall are not inside the elevator shaft.

Not that I was trying to suggest that there was someone in there flipping a lightswitch at the time either, just mentioning one of the many ignition sources possible. Every elevator shaft I've seen the inside of has had lighting. This makes it likely that there are switches also.

2 - you then mention the light that indicates what floor the elevator is on. Again these lights are either inside the elevator itself or outside the elevator shaft. Thus for the same reaosns above this explanation must be abandoned.

The lights themselves are outside the shaft. What I was talking about is the relays that control those lights. I could be wrong, but I think it's unlikely that the back of those panels is hermetically sealed off from the shaft.

3 - When elevator doors open an electronic motor produces sparks. I agree but you will agree that it only produces sparks when the elevator door is actually opening. because we know that people were still inside the descending freight elevator car we know that the doors to the freight elevator could not have been opening. Elevator doors only open when the elevator arrives and stops at that floor. So if the jet fuel ignited from an elevator door opening but we know that elevator doors at b2-3 were not opening because the freight elevator had not yet arrived then we must abandon this explanation.

I was simply listing an electrical device that's 100% guaranteed to be exposed to the inside of an elevator shaft. An elevator door also has sensors on the inside to detect something obstructing the door as it closes. Those are electrical too.

There is another thing you mentioned that is worth noting. You say that “Expensive environmentally sealed switches are needed in any environment where there are possible explosive vapors.” I agree but if you are claiming that “vapor” descended 90+floors and then exploded then you must explain how “vapor” can descend. “vapor” will naturally behave more like a gas. It seems more plausible to me that jet fuel in a “liquid state” fell down the elevator shaft.

Indeed, it would fall mostly as a liquid, which would cause it to disperse into small drops, splash on the walls, etc. Dropping a liquid that far would give it a HUGE surface area and greatly speed up its evaporation, so you'd have both liquid and vapor.

The floor at the bottom of the towers was at B6 which is 3-4 levels below where the explosion was reported to have occured. Can sparks jump up 3-4 levels? Besides no explosion was reported to have had occured at the b6 level.

Can falling debris – consisting of concrete produce a "spark" when it collides with a concrete floor? I dont think so. I dont even think that steel could produce a spark from colliding with a concrete floor.

Why only consisting of concrete? And why only impacting the floor? The debris could have been anything in the planes or the building, and it could have impacted anything along the sides of the elevator shaft all the way down to the bottom. Heck, even if it was the concrete, wasn't there rebar embedded in that? And what about the wire conduits inside the elevator shafts, could they not be broken by falling debris causing electrical shorts?

I am very glad you mentioned this. If indeed the emergency breaks of a falling elevator can poduce sparks then why did the jet fuel not ignite and obliterate the fright elevator car which was using its emergency breaks for several floors?

Don't know, maybe the car fell ahead of the fuel? If it fell because the impact cut the cables, then it was below the impact, so it had a head start. Anyone know what floor the freight elevator fell from?

I have to say i would be sceptical of this. But let us assume that liquid fuel when splashed onto a hot light bulb will shatter the light bulb. Where is the light bulb? Is it inside the elevator shaft or outside the elevator shaft? We know there are light bulbs inside the elevator but that does not serve your purpose. if the light bulbs are inside the elevator shaft it would also depend on what type of light bulb it is. but i dont know whether light bulbs were inside and exposed within the elevator shaft.
See the answer to question 1. There is lighting inside an elevator shaft.

Also, no need to assume, hot bulbs can shatter when liqiuds spray on them:
gZcJtcfDAqA

This is why i love science. According to you it is impoosible that jet fuel pouring down an elevator shaft will not find an ignition source. I disagree.

I did not use the word impossible.

Now the best way to settle this is to conduct some kind of experiment to prove whether or not your assumption is true or not. I would expect that jet fuel will not find an ignition source in an elevator shaft. Now through the scientfic method we could settle this issue.

If the jet fuel did find an ignition source i would be proven wrong and i would automatically abandon the explosives in the basement hypothesis. But what would you believe if the jet fuel did not find an ignition source after 100 trials?

Ok, good luck finding a building to test the theory. :)

A W Smith

2nd January 2008, 06:41 PM

TheSoleHole has displayed an excellent example of goal post moving.

Provide a source for for jet vapor ignition
OK. fine, provide examples
OK fine. provide how many
OK fine I doubt there are a thousand provide a thousand examplesstatic electricity (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=fuel++static+electricity)can also ignite fuel vapor,

You dont need me to list a thousand sources of static electricity do you?

Belz...

2nd January 2008, 06:41 PM

i will explain to you again. the official theory is not proven. the official hypothesis is accepted by supporters of the official hypothesis. it is not accepted by supporters of the demolition hypothesis.

That it is not accepted by some does not mean it isn't proven:

The (much) larger number of professionals in the related fields agree that that theory is correct. It fits the facts, it requires no additional assumptions, and several of its components are observable in 'similar' events.

the official hypothesis asserts that the buildings were demolished due to gravity. it is a FACT that this assertion has not been proven by the scientific method.

Soul, most experts on the planet, and most laymen who looked into this matter as well, agree that the plane impacts, and subsequent fires, initiated the collapse. ANYONE with a modicrum of knowledge in physics and building construction will tell you that once the collapse begins, there is no way to stop it. But don't take my word for it. Ask around.

if the official hypothesis is proven then the demolition hypothesis is debunked. if the official hypothesis is tested and cannot be proven then we must abandon the official hypothesis and test an alternative hypothesis.

Soul, you have no idea what you're talking about. Two 767s crashed at full speed into two of the largest skyscrapers in the world. This, I hope, you agree with. There IS NO EVIDENCE of explosives, as you've so far ignored, but there IS evidence of structural compromisation while the fires raged. Even if this was the only evidence we had, which of the two scenarios is more credible ?

i am educated enough not to resort to insults when engaging in a dialogue

When talking to a wall, it doesn't matter if you use logic or insults: the old paint doesn't peel away.

if there is no shortage of testimony claiming they heard explosions it is a utterly ridiculous statemnet to say that "not a single explosion was heard on video"

That is illogical. One has nothing to do with the other. I said that not a single explosion is heard, and when I asked you to provide a link to prove your contention that there was, you say the above. Very telling.

even if there was no video footage of explosions heard it does not NEGATE the testimony.

Of course not. But since testimony is always unreliable, we have to determine the truth value of those reports with skepticism. There is NO physical evidence of explosives, no visual evidence of explosives on the videos and no audio evidence of explosives in said videos.

People who hear sudden, loud noises often describe them as explosions. Also, a lot of things explode when in a fire, so it's hasty to conclude that a few (and that's a few) reports of 'explosions' means explosives were used.

but here is a list of videos i found on youtube where you can hear with your own ears explosions. enjoy.

Evasion noted. You cannot link to any video where those sounds are heard. Case closed.

as i said i will get to the traces of explosives found on a later date.

Get to them now and shut me up, instead.

and maybe you can provide me with a list of "all the knids if stuff" that are responsible for the explosions that were heard

I have no idea if ANY explosions were heard at all.

the burden of proof rests on your assumption - "It is IMPOSSIBLE to stop such a large falling mass".

Stating a fact does not place a burden of proof on me.

But, hey! You truthers are so dedicated to the truth, surely you can pool your ressources, build a scaled-down model of the tower, about, say, twenty stories high, and blow up a floor around the 16th to see what happens. Just don't forget to scale down the structural elements non-linearly.

it is a fact that only the official hypothesis is being investigated.

HAS been investigated.

now here the beauty, if or when the official hypothesis is proven then that will automatically debunk alternative hypothesis but if the official hypothesis cannot be proven then it must be abandoned. so logically we both have an invested interest in any efforts aimed at proving the official hypothesis.

None of this makes any sense whatsoever. You have no idea what you're talking about.

yes we do have to prove that every engineer on the planet is right.

Interesting. Why would we have to prove things proven all over again, all the time, just because a few hard-liners won't accept it ?

Belz...

2nd January 2008, 06:42 PM

no its not an appeal to emotion its an appeal to his civility and common decency. because you disagree with anothers opinion it DOES NOT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT to disrespect that person.

supporting your little buddy on this issue only reflects poorly on your own moral integrity.

Appeal to emotions.

Belz...

2nd January 2008, 06:45 PM

ok so now your sayng (i presume) that america is developing nuclear weapons but "we" the average american tax payer is not developing them.
No, that is definitely not what I'm saying. Perhaps you should check some of your assumptions before you procede with your reply.

Well, Soul ? Come on, I'm sure even you can solve that one!

JimBenArm

2nd January 2008, 06:58 PM

hey everybody

what caused the ignition of the jet fuel in the elevator shaft? does anybody know?
It was me. I was having a smoke, and tossed the butt into the shaft. I know, pretty careless of me...

Arus808

2nd January 2008, 09:44 PM

holy damn, thewholesole just feined ignorance on what can cause a fire, in a fuel ladened environment, that happened to be CRASHED BY A BIG FREAKING AIRPLANE!???

thewholesoul

3rd January 2008, 01:14 AM

Not that I was trying to suggest that there was someone in there flipping a lightswitch at the time either, just mentioning one of the many ignition sources possible. Every elevator shaft I've seen the inside of has had lighting. This makes it likely that there are switches also.

there is a lot we dont know about those elevator shafts. for instance whether or not there were lights even in the shaft, how many were there, what kind of lights were they, were they in an exposed position in relation to falling jet fuel, were light switches in the shaft, if so, where were they located, were they exposed etc etc. if they were inside the shaft they yes that would be a possible ignition source. the next part requires a simple experiment with jet fuel an elevator shaft and the light bulbs in question.

The lights themselves are outside the shaft. What I was talking about is the relays that control those lights. I could be wrong, but I think it's unlikely that the back of those panels is hermetically sealed off from the shaft.

this is a good point you make. once again if the relays are inside the shaft then you have successfully identified another possible ignition point. it would be nice to have more information though on the design of the shaft in terms of these little details. and once again we have the tools for another experiment i.e. the relay elevator shaft and jet fuel. once something like that is proven to ignite jet fuel then that would go along way debunking alternative hypothesis.

I was simply listing an electrical device that's 100% guaranteed to be exposed to the inside of an elevator shaft. An elevator door also has sensors on the inside to detect something obstructing the door as it closes. Those are electrical too.

you see if every door has this exposed electrical device then why did the jet fuel not ignite before it reached B2-3 in both the north and south tower? you see this coincidence bugs me a little. if indeed there were ignition points all over the elevator shaft one would expect an "explosion" to have occured on the different levels contrary to Morelli's testimony. for example, one would expect an explosion not to have occured in the basement. or if it did occur in the basment in a lower section perhaps down in B5-6 level. but according to Morelli's testimony an explosion seems to have occured in the identical location in both towers despite the shafts having ignition points all the way down from the imapct zone and despite all the other variables that one would expect would have caused the explosion to occur in different areas e.g. the distance the jet fuel had to descend differs, different fuel-air ratio etc etc

in any case we have another possible ignition site that could be easily tested for proof.

Indeed, it would fall mostly as a liquid, which would cause it to disperse into small drops, splash on the walls, etc. Dropping a liquid that far would give it a HUGE surface area and greatly speed up its evaporation, so you'd have both liquid and vapor.

the only avenue of descent was down the elevator shaft. no someone in here was kind enough to post the schematics of the shaft itself. i cant remember which post it was exactly. however the liquid jet fuel must travel down the sides of the elevator walls between the elevator and the shaft. from eduardo Maccabes tetimony it was roughly 30 secs after he felt building moving there was an explosion in the room next to him. i guess one way jet vapor could have past the elevator and reached the basment was by overpressure from the plane imapct and explosion.

so lets say we do have vapor down the shafts below the elevators if the light switches are not being switched, the light bulbs are not exposed or broken, the relay is not exposed etc then the vapor could not have ignited. again it would be great to see an experiment on the exact lights, relays, etc of the wtc if indeed they were located inside the shaft.

Why only consisting of concrete? And why only impacting the floor? The debris could have been anything in the planes or the building, and it could have impacted anything along the sides of the elevator shaft all the way down to the bottom. Heck, even if it was the concrete, wasn't there rebar embedded in that? And what about the wire conduits inside the elevator shafts, could they not be broken by falling debris causing electrical shorts?

thats all you said so i commented on only what your provided.

i agree one would expect that falling debris could of impacted anything along the sides but that did not happen. the falling debris seems to have hit the same b2-3 level in both towers (aswell as other areas of course). for this reason i find it difficult to believe that this was a truly random event.

as for the broken wire conduits you must remember that the shafts below the elevators well still intact and not damaged. and the explosion occured below the freight elevator. i totally accept that elctrical shorts could easily ignite jet fuel but there has to be damage first to create the electrical shorts.

Don't know, maybe the car fell ahead of the fuel? If it fell because the impact cut the cables, then it was below the impact, so it had a head start. Anyone know what floor the freight elevator fell from?

as far as i know it was heading to the 40+ floor. once the cables were cut it began to fell, so it had a head start but when it applied the emergency breaks i would imagine the jet fuel could have past the elevator with some overpressure.

there is lighting inside an elevator shaft.

you basing this assumption on the fact that all the other elevator shafts you have seen had lighting. your most likely right that it had lighting but i would like some more evidecne. and if it has lighting then what kind, was it in an exposed or shethered position etc

Also, no need to assume, hot bulbs can shatter when liqiuds spray on them:

gZcJtcfDAqA

cool, nice link. thats what i love clear proof of something occuring. however not to be a nit picker but there were two problems i had with that experimnet. firstly i am assuming that the bulbs in an elevator shaft would be within the vertical walls whereas in the demonstartion the bulb is exposed in a horizontal position. secondly the jet fuel that hits the bulb horizontally seems to be travelling at some force. its hard to know if a bulb 90+ floor below an impact would be hit with the same force however i would expect it would be lower. of course i could be wrong. in any event i believe the bulb would not be exposed to the falling jet fuel as it would be positioned vertcially in the walls of the elevator shafts.

Ok, good luck finding a building to test the theory. :)

as the bulb demonstration shows there are many simple ways experimnets can be carried out in order to prove a hypothesis. you have mentioned numerous possible ignitions all of which could be easily tested without having to build the entire twin towers.

go to the "explosion dynamic labratory", they do loads of testing, experimentation in labs, scale modelling and computer simulation. remember the best way to debunk the conspiracy nuts is to prove the official hypothesis.

beachnut

3rd January 2008, 02:49 AM

Large Jet aircraft cause big fires, especially when the engines are going (BTW, pilots are trained to TURN OFF ENGINES before we crash). Hundreds of accidents have shown the fires are big, and even bigger when the engines are running! Those little engines are spinning at 10,000 to 14,000 rpm or more, throwing hot engine parts all over, and the core temperature can be over 2000 degrees, gee whiz the exhaust gas is only 900 C, just twice the auto ignition temperature of jet fuel. Or was it lower? So we have engine parts flying all over the place hotter than the auto ignition temperature of the fuel, crashing into the core of the building and flying all over as engine parts leave the aircraft flung off at speeds over 10,000 rpm!

I am not sure you can keep a fire from happening for hundreds of feet in all directions as SEEN on 9/11, and if you have parts and fuel being accelerated by GRAVITY, I would expect fires to spread down the shafts for 800 feet and more if able! Darn, where did you loose your imagination coupled with a few facts.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879046e47a5100db6.jpg
Oh, a 600 to 700 foot long fire ball! How did all that fuel get ignited?

I think some people in elevators were burned by jet fuel? How did that light? Anyone have a clue where all that fire came from and what made it catch on fire? Do not let the 2000 degree core of the engine smashing into the core of the WTC make you fall for that one!

I Am He

3rd January 2008, 05:44 AM

Mobyseven

3rd January 2008, 06:28 AM

Thewholesoul:

Do you speak Spanish and French?

Gravy

3rd January 2008, 07:24 AM

I gather from his quoted posts that he does not think that debris from a flaming, disintegrating building can fall down a shaft, and he's focusing on light bulbs and switches. Talk about missing the forest for the trees....

He and Heiwa are breaking forum rules by advertising their commercial venture here:

Clinic for the Chronically Benightedtm

thewholesoul

3rd January 2008, 07:25 AM

Yes, indeedy. Plus the fact that – how can I put this delicately?

the cores of the buildings were directly hit by airliners, which created giant, multiple-floor masses of burning, shifting, disintegrating wreckage and rubble. Golly, how could any of that have fallen down elevator shafts?[/QUOTE]

i get it, by super sizing your words they become more TRUE and LOUD.

I might try that myself one day.

first point: nobody here is arguing that disintegrating wreckage and rubble could have fallen down the elevator shafts. thats you shadow boxing.

second point: i must have missed the part in your post that explains how disintegrating wreckage and rubble ignites descending jet fuel non-locally? Perhaps your opinion that it was the ignition source was based on the non-existent experimentations conducted by NIST in relation to the question at hand?

third point: The question is whether disintegrating wreckage and rubble was the ignition source of the fuel deflagration in the basement.

well know it can be - http://www.galcit.caltech.edu/EDL/projects/JetA/facts.html

the explosion dynamics labratory outline various ignition sources. they include: "a hot surface, an electrical arc or spark, static electricity discharge, open flame, or burning metal fragments (e.g. from grinding or incendiary devices), rapidly heated lightbulb filaments and even particles have been used in experiments as a source of ignition.

fourth point: If the disintegrating wreckage and rubble was the mid-air, non-local ignition source of the jet fuel in the basment then one would expect fuel deflagration to have occured all the way down the elevator shaft of the freight elevator car. Because naturally being closer to the source of the impact there would have been more buring wreckage and rubble above the freight elevator car. But this did not happen.

fifth point: If the disintegrating wreckage and rubble was the mid-air, non-local ignition source of the jet fuel in the basment then it must have past the jet fuel that would have accumulated between the elevator and wall of the elevator shaft. Because this is the only area whereby the jet fuel and disintegrating wreckage could have past in order to arrive below the falling elevator one would expect the flash point to have occured here at this point. but we know that this did not happen because the occupants in the freight elevator and the elevator itself would have obliterated if a fuel deflagration occured right on or beside the freight car.

sixth point: So the disntegrating wreckage did not ignite the jet fuel all the way down the elevator shaft, it did not ignite on or beside the falling elevator, rather it ignited the jet fuel 90 floor below the plane impact atr the B2-3 level in mid air and non-locally. If this was not impressive enough the disintegrating wreckage in the south tower also managed to ignite the jet fuel in the same B2-3 level.

seventh point: is this possible? sure, anything is possible. perhaps a part of the disintegrating and descending metal fragments were from incendary devices? yes the fuel deflagration or explosion in the basement could have been caused by falling debris in mid air non-locally but it would be nice to prove this through experimentation. call me a mad scientist but i want to see jet fuel being poured down an elevator shaft just to see what happens. at EDL Aviation Kerosene (Jet A) Research at Caltech they do an abundance of expeiments in labs, scale modelling and computer simulation. there is no question that the same could not be done for the explosion in the basmemt scenario.

clearly everyone in this room including myself are specultaing as to the ignition source of the jet fuel. we are speculating because the issue has not been thorougly investigated or tested. and until it has been investigated or tested the alternative hypothesis will not go away my friends. that is my final point

thewholesoul

3rd January 2008, 07:37 AM

But Gravy, TWS has challenged you to find the one true source of the spark. Not just list possibilities. He expects you to commit to one source and only one source as if you were remote viewing the elevator shaft and could actually see what happened. IT is completely beyond the point that myriad possibilities exist. TWS needs the one true source.

no i am not challenging grravy for the one through source. i am merely trying to demonstrate that nobody knows the one true source. that we are all sepcualting due to the lack of testing. so it was never a challenge that non-expert grravy could possibly fulfil given the absence of investigation and testing by NIST in relation to the ignition source behind the explosion in the basement of tower 1 and 2. of course i accept the myriad of possibilities. but each one of those possibilities can be tested through experimentation one by one if necessary.

and you even admit that yourself "I don't know what caused the spark that ignited the fireball...there was no...legitimate sources." hahhahaha i'm only joking amigo - i couldn't resist:).

Calcas

3rd January 2008, 07:42 AM

clearly everyone in this room including myself are specultaing as to the ignition source of the jet fuel.

No, they're not.

Only you are playing this absurd game.

It's like speculating on why the planes impacted the exact floors that they did.

It's moot. It DOESN'T matter. Don't you get it? It has NOTHING to do with anything.

I suggest everyone else move along now and leave you to play this stupid game by yourself.

funk de fino

3rd January 2008, 08:10 AM

the wholesoul

you do know what LEL's are dont you?

you are focusing solely on the ignition source when clearly you are forgetting the other two requirements on the fire triangle

you have to have the correct mixture of fuel and oxygen for ignition of an explosive atmosphere

you can have as much fuel as you like but if there is not the correct mixture of fuel with oxygen then it will not ignite even with an ignition source, we do not know at what points in the building and at what times this mixture was present when an ignition source was present, any time there was, then you would get a deflagaration and this could have happened a few times

we cannot say for definite what caused the ignition but we have a huge list of very plausible sources

to test as you wish, you need an exact replica of the towers and everything that happened on that day or you have variables that deflect from what happened that day, it is an impossibility to test it as you wish and say definitively that this is what happened

i work in, and teach about hazardous areas, and electrical systems for use in them, all the time

when you see a gas explosion in someones house what do you think is the most likely cause of the ignition?

thewholesoul

3rd January 2008, 08:29 AM

That it (the official hypothesis) is not accepted by some does not mean it isn't proven:

Did i say that acceptance or popularity was the grounds by which to determine whether a hypothesis is proven or not? No.

Let me explain to you again the reason why the official hypothesis remains unproven. the official hypothesis in relation to the total collapse has not been tested. Experimentation and testing is part of the scientific method. Without testing or experimentation a hypothesis will remain unproven.

Now as soon as you can tell me which large or partial models and/or computer models were used to test the total collapse of the twin towers – please let me know.

The (much) larger number of professionals in the related fields agree that that theory is correct. It fits the facts, it requires no additional assumptions, and several of its components are observable in 'similar' events.

Repeat to yourself 10 times – “sometimes the majority can be and has been wrong”.
A prime example is global warming. The so called majority of climatologists are claimed to support the global warming theory. However it still has not been proven definitively that is why there are alternative and competing theories out there i.e. carbon dioxide is not responsible for increasing global temperatures.

Every priest believes that god exists but not one priest has yet proved that god exists.
So yes i agree with you that a large number of professionals agree that the official hypothesis is correct. But without their hypothesis being tested it will remain unproven and its truth will not have been scientifically established.

Soul, most experts on the planet, and most laymen who looked into this matter as well, agree that the plane impacts, and subsequent fires, initiated the collapse. ANYONE with a modicrum of knowledge in physics and building construction will tell you that once the collapse begins, there is no way to stop it. But don't take my word for it. Ask around.

Not all experts agree. there is a growing number in Aefor 911 truth and laymen that happen to disagree and claim that what is observed fits the demolition or explosives hypothesis.

And to repeat: it is a FACT that the official hypothesis in relation to total collapse has not been proven by the scientific method.

It is not like i am asking you to prove a negative e.g. you must prove that fairy’s dont exist, i am claiming that what actually happened – the total collapse of the first three steel framed skyscrappers in history – to be proven scientifically that it was caused by fire and gravity as in the official hypothesis.

Soul, you have no idea what you're talking about. Two 767s crashed at full speed into two of the largest skyscrapers in the world. This, I hope, you agree with. There IS NO EVIDENCE of explosives, as you've so far ignored, but there IS evidence of structural compromisation while the fires raged. Even if this was the only evidence we had, which of the two scenarios is more credible?

What caused the total collapse – p (fire, gravity) or not p? if we cannot prove that p is true then it must be not p. Thats all i was saying.

I will move onto explsoives as soon as you can accept the FACT that the official hypothesis has not been proven.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm

7.Why did NIST not conduct large-scale/small-scale tests to evaluate the response of the WTC Towers structures to the aircraft impact and the fires in the buildings?
“a full-scale test was not feasible.”

“NIST did not conduct reduced scale system-level tests because there are no generally accepted scaling laws that apply to fire propagation, temperature evolution, and structural response.”

10.Why didn’t NIST fully model the collapse initiation and propagation of WTC Towers?
if you are familiar with previous postings from totovader the propogation of the towers by computer model or simulation is not “technically possible”.

So short of large scale and small scale tests, and short of computer models it is impossible to assert – as you do – that the official hypothesis has been proven.

thewholesoul

3rd January 2008, 09:45 AM

I said that not a single explosion is heard, and when I asked you to provide a link to prove your contention that there was, you say the above. Very telling.

Look, you said that not a single explosion is heard. That is simply untrue my firend. I would be crucified in this forum for saying somthing like that. But instead of retracted your false statement you decide to attack me?? I proved my contention that explosions were heard. Below are two true statements. If you have a problem with either true statement then please provide your reasons.

(a)it is a FACT that explosions were heard by witnesses we know this by reading their testimony

Paramedic Daniel Rivera “did – you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear pop pop pop pop pop?...i thought it was that.

Witness timothy burke “the building popped, lower than the fire...i was going oh, my god, there is a secondary device because the way the building popped. I thought it was an explosion”

Firefighter edward cachia – “it actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. We originally thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives...”

Assistant comissioner stephan gregory “i thought that i saw lower level flashes...(at) the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building”
What is your official explanation of their testimony Belz? This is the topic of the thread so tell me why these testimonies do not corroborate the testimony of rodriguez?

(b)it is a FACT that explosions can be heard on video footage i sent you

9/11 Twin Towers: Bomb in the lobby! In this video you can hear a massive explosion after 3 seconds. What did you hear when you watched the video?

Account of North Tower Explosions from the New Jersey Shore. In this video you have sound software. Again you can hear a massive explosion before the tower begins to collapse. What did you hear in the video?

9/11: Total Proof That Bombs Were Planted In The Buildings. This video not only can you hear an explosion at the very beginning it is not debunkable because it only features reporters that day that reported what they and others perceived that day i.e. explosions and secondary devices within the buildings

I think that is enough proof that explosions were heard by witnesses and are present in video footage. that is not to say of course that the explosions they heard were caused by explosives. but to say that no explosions was heard is absurd.

Of course not. But since testimony is always unreliable, we have to determine the truth value of those reports with skepticism. There is NO physical evidence of explosives, no visual evidence of explosives on the videos and no audio evidence of explosives in said videos.

There is audiable evidence of explosions on the videos. The is oral evidecne of explosions in testimony. I will get to the lack of evidence and evidence for explosives at a later date.

People who hear sudden, loud noises often describe them as explosions. Also, a lot of things explode when in a fire, so it's hasty to conclude that a few (and that's a few) reports of 'explosions' means explosives were used.

Recall above you stated that “not a single explosion is heard” now you admit that explosions were reported. Good, i will take that as a subtle retraction of your previous no-explosions-heard position.

Evasion noted. You cannot link to any video where those sounds are heard. Case closed.

What evasion i provided the proof you requested that explosions were heard in both testimony and video footage??? It seems you now going back to your false no-explosion-heard postion. Your hipocracy has been noted.

are you suggesting that i must prove that the explosions heard in the video came from the twin tower? well when reporters and witnesses claim explosions were in the twin towers i do not need to prove that explosions in the videos came from the towers. i simply assume that their testimony is true an they did experience an explsion inside the towers.

i said the burden of proof rests on your assumption - "It is IMPOSSIBLE to stop such a large falling mass".
Stating a fact does not place a burden of proof on me.

It does when the so called fact is based on an unproven assumption you expect me and others to take for granted.

I have no idea if ANY explosions were heard at all.
I think that speaks for itself.

If you cannot read the testimony and listen to the video’s i sent you then there is nothing more i can do.

On a side note. It only demonstrates in spades to me the complete bias in this so called forum of critical thinking. Here we have a clear example of someone who actually believes that no-explosions-were-heard which goes against testimony and video footage and news reports of that day. yet not ONE person in this room corrects him??? However if i make a spelling mistake i will be sure to have a wave of criticism and insults. Bias is noted gentlemen and ladies.

HAS been investigated.

Really, so tell me what was the collapse mechanism in tower 7? was the explosion in the basement investigated? how about the total collapse?

thewholesoul

3rd January 2008, 10:08 AM

I gather from his quoted posts that he does not think that debris from a flaming, disintegrating building can fall down a shaft, and he's focusing on light bulbs and switches. Talk about missing the forest for the trees....

hello grravy.

i clearly stated that disintegrating debris can descend down the elevator shaft.

heres what i think. i think that there is a myrad of possible ignition sources. . i know that you are speculating being an expert on existentialist nothingness. others have suggested light bulbs and switches and yes light bulbs and switches are possible sources of jet fuel ignition according to real experts on this subject.

so yes it could have been the falling debris, the light bulbs, or caused by a thermite reaction as well as a multitude though limited amount of other possible ignition sources.

by limiting the possible ignition of jet fuel to one source only shows your lack of expertise on the issue. admittedly i am no expert either but i understand that a varity of reasons could have been the ignition source. i know that NIST conducted no experiments to prove any of the possible ignition sources. i know that i am speculating when i claim that incendary devices could have been the source of the explosion in the basement.

but all aside its good to be chatting again with you grravy its a real pleasure watching you waste those key strokes on a fellow non-expert like myself.

p.s. you failed to address the points in relation to your disintegrating debris scenario and instead attacked a strawman.

thewholesoul

3rd January 2008, 10:16 AM

What "Hypothesis" do you keep blabbering about, Whole? Yours?
Because if your talking about yours, which one? You have so many of them that no one knows what you are talking about. And personally I don't think you know yourself.

What I don't understand is why everyone here hasn't but you on Ignore for your uneducated replies.

I Am He

you see i would never bother responding to someone like you because your more interested in insults than a real dialogue.

why dont you put me on ignore and i will add you to my list of scalps.

there are two main hypothesis.
the official hypothesis
alternative hypothesis

i hope that clear things up for you.

as for which one i ascribe to - i would say the later. i am sceptical and a critic of the official hypothesis. if it proven to be true then i will accept it no questions asked. until it is proven i have no reason to believe it s true - at least none that have concinced me yet anyhows.

WildCat

3rd January 2008, 10:25 AM

there are two main hypothesis.
the official hypothesis
alternative hypothesis
Finally, a truther who has an "alternative hypothesis".

Could you, you know, share that hypothesis with all of us?

Dave Rogers

3rd January 2008, 10:26 AM

there are two main hypothesis.
the official hypothesis
alternative hypothesis

i hope that clear things up for you.

Could you clear things up a bit more please? This alternative hypothesis: LIHOP or MIHOP? Planes or no planes at the WTC? Plane or no plane at the Pentagon? Plane crash, shootdown or no plane at Shanksville? Thermite, explosives, energy beams from space or no demolition of WTC1 and 2? WTC7 - CD or collateral damage? Were the passengers on board? Were the airphone calls real or fake? Were the planes remote controlled, flown by hijackers working unwittingly for the CIA, or set on autopilot by Mossad agents who then parachuted out of the nose gear door? NORAD - stand down or shoot down? Put options? Fat Osama? Shall I go on?

You see, there isn't an "alternative hypothesis", just a mess of individual fantasies that don't mesh together in any coherent form. If there was a single, coherent, complete alternative hypothesis, it would be a big step forward from where the truth movement is now.

Dave.

SDC

3rd January 2008, 10:31 AM

you see i would never bother responding to someone like you because your more interested in insults than a real dialogue.

why dont you put me on ignore and i will add you to my list of scalps.

there are two main hypothesis.
the official hypothesis
alternative hypothesis

i hope that clear things up for you.

as for which one i ascribe to - i would say the later. i am sceptical and a critic of the official hypothesis. if it proven to be true then i will accept it no questions asked. until it is proven i have no reason to believe it s true - at least none that have concinced me yet anyhows.

Let me join the chorus: please present your "alternative hypothesis." Just an outline will suffice for now. Picking at perceived errors in the "official hypothesis" won't gain you any respect at all. To be taken seriously, you have to provide a narrative -- what you think happened. Again, an outline will be enough.

Your message implies that you regard it as a victory ("my list of scalps") when someone else puts you on ignore. I don't see the logic.

Belz...

3rd January 2008, 10:37 AM

Did i say that acceptance or popularity was the grounds by which to determine whether a hypothesis is proven or not? No.

Why don't you read what I said again:

That it (the official hypothesis) is not accepted by some does not mean it isn't proven

Let me explain to you again the reason why the official hypothesis remains unproven. the official hypothesis in relation to the total collapse has not been tested.

Of course it's been tested. Two airliners crashed into the WTC towers on 9/11. They collapsed. There is no rational alternative explanation.

Experimentation and testing is part of the scientific method. Without testing or experimentation a hypothesis will remain unproven.

You have no idea how "the scientific method" operates, obviously, because you say it as though it was a mantra. You took the cheap science class, it seems.

Now as soon as you can tell me which large or partial models and/or computer models were used to test the total collapse of the twin towers – please let me know.

Again, you ignore what I've said more than once: once the collapse was initiated, we all agree that it could not be stopped because the forces involved were overwhelming.

Repeat to yourself 10 times – “sometimes the majority can be and has been wrong”.

Again, you fail to read my post. Please read MORE SLOWLY. The burden of proof IS yours BECAUSE it is the accepted theory.

Also, just because someone CAN be wrong is no reason to doubt everything he says.

A prime example is global warming. The so called majority of climatologists are claimed to support the global warming theory. However it still has not been proven definitively that is why there are alternative and competing theories out there i.e. carbon dioxide is not responsible for increasing global temperatures.

I see you've got all kinds of woo. Perhaps you'd care to cite a more relevant example.

So yes i agree with you that a large number of professionals agree that the official hypothesis is correct. But without their hypothesis being tested it will remain unproven and its truth will not have been scientifically established.

Unfortunately for you, that YOU don't agree with them doesn't take YOUR burden of proof away.

Not all experts agree.

Irrelevant. All experts will never agree on anything.

there is a growing number in Aefor 911 truth and laymen that happen to disagree and claim that what is observed fits the demolition or explosives hypothesis.

Funny, the number seems to be vanishingly small.

the total collapse of the first three steel framed skyscrappers in history

But not the first time we've seen a total collapse of a steel framed building.

I will move onto explsoives as soon as you can accept the FACT that the official hypothesis has not been proven.

That's a nice cop-out.

7.Why did NIST not conduct large-scale/small-scale tests to evaluate the response of the WTC Towers structures to the aircraft impact and the fires in the buildings?

They did a computer simulation.

“a full-scale test was not feasible.”

Indeed, it isn't.

Look, you said that not a single explosion is heard. That is simply untrue my firend. I would be crucified in this forum for saying somthing like that. But instead of retracted your false statement you decide to attack me?? I proved my contention that explosions were heard. Below are two true statements. If you have a problem with either true statement then please provide your reasons.

I've asked you several times to link to a video where we DID hear, at least what sounded like, explosions. you have FAILED to do so.

(a)it is a FACT that explosions were heard by witnesses we know this by reading their testimony

No, what's a FACT is that they CLAIM to have heard explosions.

I'm not saying they are lying, I'm saying they are most likely wrong.

There is audiable evidence of explosions on the videos.

Still waiting.

Recall above you stated that “not a single explosion is heard” now you admit that explosions were reported. Good, i will take that as a subtle retraction of your previous no-explosions-heard position.

If you can't tell the difference then it's no wonder you believe in such absurd ideas.

Your hipocracy has been noted.

My hypocrisy has been made-up, you mean.

Belz...

3rd January 2008, 10:38 AM

I think that speaks for itself.

If you cannot read the testimony and listen to the video’s i sent you then there is nothing more i can do.

On a side note. It only demonstrates in spades to me the complete bias in this so called forum of critical thinking. Here we have a clear example of someone who actually believes that no-explosions-were-heard which goes against testimony and video footage and news reports of that day. yet not ONE person in this room corrects him??? However if i make a spelling mistake i will be sure to have a wave of criticism and insults. Bias is noted gentlemen and ladies.

Soul, before we continue with this discussion you might want to attend some English classes. You are obviously incapable of understanding simple English, a language that I learned by watching television in the late 80s.

thewholesoul

3rd January 2008, 10:55 AM

you do know what LEL's are dont you?

yes

[QUOTE=funk de fino;3298740] you are focusing solely on the ignition source when clearly you are forgetting the other two requirements on the fire triangle

yes i am focuing on the ignition because experts who actually conduct experiments on jet fuel list incendary devices as a possible igniton source. an experiment on you tube confirms this aswell see Re: 9/11 Debate: Loose Change vs. Popular Mechanics pt. 1

[QUOTE=funk de fino;3298740] you have to have the correct mixture of fuel and oxygen for ignition of an explosive atmosphere

i agree. the air/fuel ratio is crucial.

[QUOTE=funk de fino;3298740] you can have as much fuel as you like but if there is not the correct mixture of fuel with oxygen then it will not ignite even with an ignition source, we do not know at what points in the building and at what times this mixture was present when an ignition source was present, any time there was, then you would get a deflagaration and this could have happened a few times

i agree.

but we must assume that the for the official hypothesis to be true the correct fuel/air ratio was present in the B2-3 levels in both towers despite the fact that the planes impacted at different floors which means that - assuming the fuel was oxygenated when descending down the elevator shaft - that the fuel/air ratio must have been different in B2-3 level of both towers yet the same event occured?

so what is the rate of oxygenation of descending fuel per/sec? what is the range of fuel/air ratio in terms of being flammable?

[QUOTE=funk de fino;3298740] we cannot say for definite what caused the ignition but we have a huge list of very plausible sources

i agree. and one plausible source in my opinion is an incendary device.

[QUOTE=funk de fino;3298740] to test as you wish, you need an exact replica of the towers and everything that happened on that day or you have variables that deflect from what happened that day, it is an impossibility to test it as you wish and say definitively that this is what happened

i dont agree. we do not need to construct an exact replica. we could construct a scale replica and remember we are not testing the structural integrity of the towers we are testing whether the jet fuel will ignite from possible sources of ignition. the quantity of fuel is a variable that could be measured and adjusted, the fuel/air ratio could be measured and adjusted, the speed at which the jet fuel feel could be measured and adjusted, the angle etc etc the ignition sources could also be prepared and tested.

look if NIST can test how the fireproofing could be removed from the impact of jet plane by firing a shotgun into a wooden box containing a non-representative piece of fireproofing then experiments can me made to determine which ignition, if any, can in mid-air, non-locally cause a delfagration of descending jet-fuel. these are just some ideas.

also EDL - Aviation Kerosene (Jet A) Research at Caltech conduct many experiments to determine explosions in aeroplanes. that doesnto mean they fly a plane and plant an ignition in it. they do lab experiments, scale experiments, simulations in an attmept to investiagte and uncover the causes of a plane disaster. this stuff is not impossible.

[QUOTE=funk de fino;3298740] i work in, and teach about hazardous areas, and electrical systems for use in them, all the time

thats fine, but other experts at the Explosions Dynamics Labratory study and test explosions for their bread and butter.

[QUOTE=funk de fino;3298740] when you see a gas explosion in someones house what do you think is the most likely cause of the ignition?

i think thermite, lazer beams from mars, and bigfoot - sorry only joking -

i think was it an accident or intentional.

thewholesoul

3rd January 2008, 10:58 AM

you do know what LEL's are dont you?

yes

you are focusing solely on the ignition source when clearly you are forgetting the other two requirements on the fire triangle

yes i am focuing on the ignition because experts who actually conduct experiments on jet fuel list incendary devices as a possible igniton source. an experiment on you tube confirms this aswell see Re: 9/11 Debate: Loose Change vs. Popular Mechanics pt. 1

you have to have the correct mixture of fuel and oxygen for ignition of an explosive atmosphere

i agree. the air/fuel ratio is crucial.

you can have as much fuel as you like but if there is not the correct mixture of fuel with oxygen then it will not ignite even with an ignition source, we do not know at what points in the building and at what times this mixture was present when an ignition source was present, any time there was, then you would get a deflagaration and this could have happened a few times

i agree.

but we must assume that the for the official hypothesis to be true the correct fuel/air ratio was present in the B2-3 levels in both towers despite the fact that the planes impacted at different floors which means that - assuming the fuel was oxygenated when descending down the elevator shaft - that the fuel/air ratio must have been different in B2-3 level of both towers yet the same event occured?

so what is the rate of oxygenation of descending fuel per/sec? what is the range of fuel/air ratio in terms of being flammable?

we cannot say for definite what caused the ignition but we have a huge list of very plausible sources

i agree. and one plausible source in my opinion is an incendary device.

to test as you wish, you need an exact replica of the towers and everything that happened on that day or you have variables that deflect from what happened that day, it is an impossibility to test it as you wish and say definitively that this is what happened

i dont agree. we do not need to construct an exact replica. we could construct a scale replica and remember we are not testing the structural integrity of the towers we are testing whether the jet fuel will ignite from possible sources of ignition. the quantity of fuel is a variable that could be measured and adjusted, the fuel/air ratio could be measured and adjusted, the speed at which the jet fuel feel could be measured and adjusted, the angle etc etc the ignition sources could also be prepared and tested.

look if NIST can test how the fireproofing could be removed from the impact of jet plane by firing a shotgun into a wooden box containing a non-representative piece of fireproofing then experiments can me made to determine which ignition, if any, can in mid-air, non-locally cause a delfagration of descending jet-fuel. these are just some ideas.

also EDL - Aviation Kerosene (Jet A) Research at Caltech conduct many experiments to determine explosions in aeroplanes. that doesnto mean they fly a plane and plant an ignition in it. they do lab experiments, scale experiments, simulations in an attmept to investiagte and uncover the causes of a plane disaster. this stuff is not impossible.

i work in, and teach about hazardous areas, and electrical systems for use in them, all the time

thats fine, but other experts at the Explosions Dynamics Labratory study and test explosions for their bread and butter.

when you see a gas explosion in someones house what do you think is the most likely cause of the ignition?

i think thermite, lazer beams from mars, and bigfoot - sorry only joking -

i think was it an accident or intentional. and i think if it was intentional then every plausible hypothesis should be investigated thoroughly

thewholesoul

3rd January 2008, 11:14 AM

No, they're not.(their not speculating)

oh yes they are.

we are discussing the possible sources of ignition, the probable causes, the most plausable source of ignition. this language could hardly be described as that of certainty and absolutes.

Only you are playing this absurd game.

care to join? i posted several accounts of witness testimony that corroborates william rodriguez's testimony. why dont yo make a comment about that?

It's like speculating on why the planes impacted the exact floors that they did.

hang on you just said above that they are not speculating!! now your saying that its like speculating why the planes hit the exact floor??

besides if we all know the exact floor where the planes hit surely that is the language of certainty not speculation. conversly we do not know for certain the exact source of ignition in relation to the explosion in the basement hence the speculation.

It's moot. It DOESN'T matter. Don't you get it? It has NOTHING to do with anything.

you mean it doesnt matter to you yet you decide to post in the forum that it doesnt matetr to you - how constructive. maybe you should reserve your nihilism for a religious thread in the JREF forum.

it is important to establish the source of igniton for certain - in order to remove the possibility - that the source of ignition could have been an incendary device as seen in the video link i posted previously.

I suggest everyone else move along now and leave you to play this stupid game by yourself.

i suggest you move along and allow us to have a dialogue in peace.

thewholesoul

3rd January 2008, 11:27 AM

Could you clear things up a bit more please? This alternative hypothesis: LIHOP or MIHOP? Planes or no planes at the WTC? Plane or no plane at the Pentagon? Plane crash, shootdown or no plane at Shanksville? Thermite, explosives, energy beams from space or no demolition of WTC1 and 2? WTC7 - CD or collateral damage? Were the passengers on board? Were the airphone calls real or fake? Were the planes remote controlled, flown by hijackers working unwittingly for the CIA, or set on autopilot by Mossad agents who then parachuted out of the nose gear door? NORAD - stand down or shoot down? Put options? Fat Osama? Shall I go on?

You see, there isn't an "alternative hypothesis", just a mess of individual fantasies that don't mesh together in any coherent form. If there was a single, coherent, complete alternative hypothesis, it would be a big step forward from where the truth movement is now.

Dave.

hey dave,

i hold the belief that bigfoot order the destruction of the towers because mrs bigfoot had an affair with donald duck.

joking aside however - your right - there is an array of different versions in relation to the "alternative hypotehsis" i mentioned. but you could hardly say that the official hypothesis has been an example of consistency??

given that the topic of this thread is about witness testimony and explosions in the buildings i do not feel obliged to go into the exact version of the alternative hypothesis i subscribe to. its not the no planes theory anyhows.

let us just say that there are two kinds of folk. those that believe that the government tells the truth and those that do not. those that believe governemnts do not perform false flag operations and those that do.

take a look at pakistan my friend. the governemt said she died from hitting her head of the sun roof - that was the official story - and lets not forget the al queda thrown in for good measure. the official story was spun eventhough there was video evidence of her being shot!!! they have sinced changed their story - of course the government are still the good guys and had nothing to do with the event - all those nut bags saying the government could be involved are just crazy heh. those pesky conspiracists

JimBenArm

3rd January 2008, 11:32 AM

One potential spark source listed here I have a problem with, if I can be a bit pedantic. Motors most likely would not be a source of sparks, especially if they were induction motors. DC motors with brushes and commutators maybe, but AC induction motors do not spark. Since this is most likely the type used in the towers, I can't see this as a potential source.

WildCat

3rd January 2008, 11:36 AM

WildCat

3rd January 2008, 11:38 AM

given that the topic of this thread is about witness testimony and explosions in the buildings i do not feel obliged to go into the exact version of the alternative hypothesis i subscribe to.
Great, I'll start another thread just for you to present your 100% consistent alternative hypothesis.

DavidJames

3rd January 2008, 11:39 AM

let us just say that there are two kinds of folk. those that believe that the government tells the truth and those that do not. those that believe governemnts do not perform false flag operations and those that do. Actually, let's not say that. Let's not use a false dilemma fallacy. Let's say you take some time to learn about critical thinking, come back and try again.

funk de fino

3rd January 2008, 02:22 PM

yes

Really, then why the later question?

yes i am focuing on the ignition because experts who actually conduct experiments on jet fuel list incendary devices as a possible igniton source. an experiment on you tube confirms this aswell see Re: 9/11 Debate: Loose Change vs. Popular Mechanics pt. 1

yet there is no other evidence for this incendiary? stick to what we know was available for the fire triangle please

i agree. the air/fuel ratio is crucial.

good

i agree.

again, good

but we must assume that the for the official hypothesis to be true the correct fuel/air ratio was present in the B2-3 levels in both towers despite the fact that the planes impacted at different floors which means that - assuming the fuel was oxygenated when descending down the elevator shaft - that the fuel/air ratio must have been different in B2-3 level of both towers yet the same event occured?

Assume? Why must we assume anything? tell me what was in the B2 B3 levels?

1. so what is the rate of oxygenation of descending fuel per/sec?

2. what is the range of fuel/air ratio in terms of being flammable?

1. irrelevant and shows me you know little about this subject

2. thought you knew about LEL's? what about UEL's?

i agree. and one plausible source in my opinion is an incendary device.

no, that would be implausible, you are incorrect

i dont agree. we do not need to construct an exact replica. we could construct a scale replica and remember we are not testing the structural integrity of the towers we are testing whether the jet fuel will ignite from possible sources of ignition. the quantity of fuel is a variable that could be measured and adjusted, the fuel/air ratio could be measured and adjusted, the speed at which the jet fuel feel could be measured and adjusted, the angle etc etc the ignition sources could also be prepared and tested.

How do we make an exact replica scaled for all the possible sources of ignition? Every switch, lamp, relay etc etc that was inside the lift shaft? or the B2/3 area?

PS from EDL site, after all there help they still could not come up with a definite source of ignition for TWA 800. Could they prove it in the Towers?

"The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the TWA Flight 800 accident was an explosion of the center wing fuel tank (CWT) resulting from ignition of the flammable fuel/air mixture in the tank. The source of ignition energy for the explosion could not be determined with certainty but, of the sources evaluated by the investigation, the most likely was a short circuit outside of the center wing tank that allowed excessive voltage to enter it through electrical wiring associated with the fuel quantity indication system.

They work with NTSB and the FAA. Do you agree with the findings from NTSB and the FAA about 911?

look if NIST can test how the fireproofing could be removed from the impact of jet plane by firing a shotgun into a wooden box containing a non-representative piece of fireproofing then experiments can me made to determine which ignition, if any, can in mid-air, non-locally cause a delfagration of descending jet-fuel. these are just some ideas.

They are ideas but they show you have no idea what you are talking about

also EDL - Aviation Kerosene (Jet A) Research at Caltech conduct many experiments to determine explosions in aeroplanes. that doesnto mean they fly a plane and plant an ignition in it. they do lab experiments, scale experiments, simulations in an attmept to investiagte and uncover the causes of a plane disaster. this stuff is not impossible.

For what you want to achieve, it is. Do they do full scale or small scale mock up tests of every plane crash to prove the failure?

thats fine, but other experts at the Explosions Dynamics Labratory study and test explosions for their bread and butter.

And? It is my job to understand and work in these areas, it is my bread and butter. I know more than you yet you doubt me. Why should I not doubt them?

i think thermite, lazer beams from mars, and bigfoot - sorry only joking -

i think was it an accident or intentional. and i think if it was intentional then every plausible hypothesis should be investigated thoroughly

You think this is a joke?

I asked what caused it not whether it was an accident of intentional? What do you think the most probable source of ignition could be in this gas explosion?

thewholesoul

3rd January 2008, 06:55 PM

WHAT IS PROOF?
Here are some defintions of “proof” found at dictionary.com
1 - To establish the truth or genuiness of, as by evidence or argument: “to prove one’s claim”.
2 - To give demonstration of “by action”.
3 - To subject to “a test, experiment”, comparison, analysis, to determine quality, amount, acceptability, characteristics.
4 - To establish the validity of something, as by “an example”, explanation or “experiment”.
Proof is also the conclusive establishing of the truth of a proposition

WHO HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF?

Here is a quote from wikipedia

Outside a legal context, “burden of proof” means that someone suggesting a “new theory or stating a claim” must provide eivdence to support it: it is not sufficient to say “you can’t disprove this”. Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else’s responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because “not X” cannot be proven (negative proof).

Now i understand your position on the burden of proof. what your saying is that those who do not accept the official hypothesis and are making a bold claim (i.e. the wtc were demolished by explosives or incendary devices) and it is they that are responsible to prove their bold claim.

I agree. We are responsible to prove the claim that the towers were demolished by CD.

WHAT IS THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD?

Here is another quote from wikipedia

Scientific method is a body of techniques for “investigating phenomena”...it is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the “collection of data through observation and experimentation” and the formulation and “testing of hypotheses” Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinquish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers “propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses”.

(HYPOTHESES) A hypothesis consists of a “suggested explanation for a phenomenon”. The term derives from the greek, hypotithenai meaning “to put under” or “to suppose”. The scientific method “requires that one can test a scientfiic hypothesis”.
(EXPERIMENT) in the scientific method, “an experiment” is a set of observations performed in the context of solving a particular problem or question, “to retain or falsify a hypothesis” or research concerning phenomena. “The experiment is a cornerstone in the empirical approach to acquiring deeper knowledge about the physical world”.

Now i hope we are clear about “proof” the “burden of proof” the “scientific method”, “hypothesis”and “experimentation”

NIST's investigation is often cited as “proving the official theory” that the plane crashes and fires caused the collapses. Yet the Report does not explain why or how the buildings “totally collapsed”, despite the lack of a single historical precedent for a steel-framed skyscraper totally collapsing for any reason other than controlled demolition. NIST simply avoids explanation of “total collapse” by placing it outside the scope of its investigation, CLAIMING that "global collapse" was "inevitable" after the "initiation of collapse”.

So why was it inevitable? You say
because the forces involved were overwhelming
Here you are clearly making a “CLAIM”. A claim which has “not been proven” by “experimentation” but rather is assumed to be true. Your assumption is backed up by calculations which “predict” that the towers could not survive post the initial collapse. Of course there are “contrary calculations” which predict that the towers would have survived post the initial collapse.

Aerodynamically calculations on paper show that a bumble bee cannot fly – however we know that it can fly – in reality. experimentation is the best way and perhaps the only way to prove whether calculations are true or false.

Has the inevitablity claim/assumption been proven through experimentation? No!!

1)FACT: No large or partial models have been used to test the “total collapse”. The reason for this is because NIST considers such efforts “non feasible” due to problems with scaling laws.

2)FACT: No computer models or simulations were produced by NIST in relation to the “total collapse”. The reason given is because the computers are basically not sophisticated enough.

Now you pointed out that They did a computer simulation

They actually did about 10 see my post #933 where i listed them ALL but none of these addressed the “total collapse”. Yes NIST models such things as the impact fireballs and smoke plumes and the pattern of damage caused by the impact of jetliners. Conspicuously missising from their study are simulations, models, or even calcualtions that attempt to describe how and why the towers “totally collapsed”.

So why total collapse has not be proven is essentially because

-it was not within the scope of NIST’s investigation

-to prove total collapse through experimentation or simulation is not feasible

i like to characterize this situation as the “impossible-inevitable” because although we are told that once the initial collapse occurs it is inevitable, a done deal, guaranteed that total collapse will ensue in a steel-framed skyscraper. at the same time we are told that it is impossible, not feasible, even outrageous (totovader’s comment) to prove this natural(?) phenomena through experimentation!!!

However i would contend that when computers become more advanced it will be modelled and the official hypothesis can finally be put to the test through demonstration.

There is also a “double-standard” or inconsistency that needs to be addressed. On the one hand defenders of the official hypothesis are never shy when invoking the burden of proof argument against advocates of alternative hypothesis. and as stated above i entirely agree and believe that advocates of alternative hypotheses, or any hypothesis for that matter, are responsible in terms of proving their own hypothesis. However on the other hand defenders of the official hypothesis appear to reject any call for them to prove their own hypothesis – that is, the official hypothesis. in other words, truthers have to prove how total collapse occured due to controlled demolition or explosives but defenders of the official hypothesis do not have to prove that the total collapse occured due to fire and gravity. This double standard is unacceptable.

Again the arguments presented by defenders of the official hypothesis include
(a)We already proved the official hypothesis: but we all know that their claim that total collapse is inevitable post initial collapse has neither been investigated or proven through the scientific method.

(b)It cannot be proven: the impossible-inevitable arguement which is not sustainable given advances in computer technology.

Now to my mind there are two kinds of investigation.

The first is the “full complete” investigation. That is instead of truthers calling for a reinvestigation of an alternative hypothesis they should demand that the official hypothesis be more thoroughly investigated and “eventually proven” through the “scientific method”.

If, of course, the official fire-and-gravity hypothesis cannot be proven to be true then it must be abandoned. Thewholesoul challenge still remains unaswered – that is, if (hypothetically speaking) the official hypothesis was not proven to be true – would you continue to believe it is true or would you support an alternative hypothesis???

The second is the reinvestigation of 911 under an alternative hypothesis. but this is “not feasible” if indeed members of the governemnt were complicit. If, of course, it was not an inside job then efforts for a reinvestigation under an alternative hypothesis is an extreme waste of money and ultimately a “futile endevour”.

in closing i argued that the burden of proof rests on advocates of all hypotheses and that includes defenders of the official hypothesis. if someone disagrees i would really enjoy a civil debate.

the big CLAIM is that total collapse is inevitable post initial collapse. if anyone can provide me a large or partial model, or computer simulation of this i would retract my argument that the official hypothesis is unproven - assuming of course that total collapse is also part of and included in the official hypothesis.

A W Smith

3rd January 2008, 07:18 PM

TheSoleHole thanks for making our point

Outside a legal context, “burden of proof” means that someone suggesting a “new theory or stating a claim” must provide eivdence to support it: it is not sufficient to say “you can’t disprove this”. Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else’s responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because “not X” cannot be proven (negative proof).

Dave Rogers

4th January 2008, 02:52 AM

joking aside however - your right - there is an array of different versions in relation to the "alternative hypotehsis" i mentioned. but you could hardly say that the official hypothesis has been an example of consistency??

What you refer to as "the official hypothesis", a term of which only the first word is accurate, is indeed an example of consistency compared to the conjecture salad put forward by the truth movement. When you try to equate inconsistencies in "the official hypothesis" with those in the truther views, you're suggesting that attempts to understand the mechanism by which certain events occurred are equivalent to complete lack of knowledge of the basic sequence of events. Such an equation can only be suggested by those without the slightest vestige of a sense of proportion.

Dave

Belz...

4th January 2008, 05:56 AM

WHO HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF?

Here is a quote from wikipedia

Outside a legal context, “burden of proof” means that someone suggesting a “new theory or stating a claim” must provide eivdence to support it: it is not sufficient to say “you can’t disprove this”. Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else’s responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because “not X” cannot be proven (negative proof).

Thanks for making my point clearer.

Here you are clearly making a “CLAIM”. A claim which has “not been proven” by “experimentation” but rather is assumed to be true.

It's not ASSUMED to be true. When such a significant mass falls, it just doesn't stop. But hey! Before you go and build yourself a full-scale Trade Center, why don't you get some physics class and calculate it yourself ?

Your assumption is backed up by calculations which “predict” that the towers could not survive post the initial collapse. Of course there are “contrary calculations” which predict that the towers would have survived post the initial collapse.

Show them.

Aerodynamically calculations on paper show that a bumble bee cannot fly

Source ?

1)FACT: No large or partial models have been used to test the “total collapse”. The reason for this is because NIST considers such efforts “non feasible” due to problems with scaling laws.

Not only that, but it also wasn't the goal of their report.

2)FACT: No computer models or simulations were produced by NIST in relation to the “total collapse”. The reason given is because the computers are basically not sophisticated enough.

And also because they didn't care much: they also know that once the collapse initiated, nothing could stop it.

funk de fino

4th January 2008, 08:20 AM

thewholesoul

4th January 2008, 08:34 AM

(i said) Did i say that acceptance or popularity was the grounds by which to determine whether a hypothesis is proven or not? No.

(you said) Why don't you read what I said again:

so what he said was
That it (the official hypothesis) is not accepted by some does not mean it isn't proven

I think we are experiencing a communications break down or something Belz. If you re-read carefully your own statement above the important parts highlighted in bold you are obviously, plainly, and clearly suggesting that because the official hypothisis is not accepted by some does not mean that the official hypothesis is not proven. meaning that you believe the official hypothesis is proven and just because some wacko truthers do not accept the official hypothesis does not mean the official hypothesis is not proven. which suggests to me that you are basing acceptance of the official hypothesis as "one ground" upon which the official hypothesis is already proven.

Once again acceptance, popularity, or whatever is not the criterion by which to determine whether a hypothesis is proven or not. The fact more accept the official hypothesis has nothing got to do with proving the truth of that hypothesis according to the scientific method of tests and experimentation.

Let me explain to you again the reason why the official hypothesis remains unproven. the official hypothesis in relation to the total collapse has not been tested.
you say
Of course it's been tested. Two airliners crashed into the WTC towers on 9/11. They collapsed. There is no rational alternative explanation.

Wrong. You are confusing the observed phenomena with experimentation.
total collapse was never tested - you could perhaps withdraw this statement aswell if you like.

Apart from 911 the primary reason steel-framed skyscraper’s totally collapsed was due to controlled demolition. To my mind that makes it a pretty rational and plausible explanation for the events.

Now as soon as you can tell me which large or partial models and/or computer models were used to test the total collapse of the twin towers – please let me know.
you said
Again, you ignore what I've said more than once: once the collapse was initiated, we all agree that it could not be stopped because the forces involved were overwhelming

Just a second ago you were claiming that terrorists flying two planes into the towers were actually conducting a scientific experiment.

Now your saying that no experimnet is required because total callapse was inevitable post initial collapse. If indeed you all agree it could not be stopped (which of course is an untrue statement) then surely it would be easy to demonstrate this natural phenomena through tests and experimentation.

This CLAIM – that once the collapse initiated – total collapse was inevitable HAS NEVER BEEN PROVEN.

i am not and never have IGNORED this claim! it is CENTRAL to my argument - CENTRAL. what you seem to ignore is that this CLAIM was never proven according to the scientific method of testing and experimentation!!!!! and just because you keep repeating this CLAIM doesnt make it true.

The burden of proof IS yours BECAUSE it is the accepted theory.

Wrong. The burden of proof is on any person who endorses a particualr hypothesis. if you believe that only defenders of alternative hypothesis have a burden of prove then you are practising an unacceptable double standard. See my post #1047

To repeat the CLAIM – that once the collapse initiated – total collapse was inevitable HAS NEVER BEEN PROVEN.

They did a computer simulation

They did several computer simulations but – NONE – not one on the total collapse post initial collapse.

I've asked you several times to link to a video where we DID hear, at least what sounded like, explosions. you have FAILED to do so.

No i linked videos here they are again. 9/11 Twin Towers: Bomb in the lobby!
Account of North Tower Explosions from the New Jersey Shore.
9/11: Total Proof That Bombs Were Planted In The Buildings

If you cannot hear an explosion in these videos then the only thing that failed is your hearing.

If you disagree that an explosion can be heard in all three of these videos then tell me what should an explosion sound like and why do the explosions in these videos not sound like explosions. simply stating i "failed" is not provideing the reasons why YOU THINK i failed.

(i said) it is a FACT that explosions were heard by witnesses we know this by reading their testimony
now the only logical way to refute this fact is to say that no explosions were heard, nobody claimed to hear explosions in their testimony - now thats the only logical way to refute that statement i made above. lets see what Belz says

No, what's a FACT is that they CLAIM to have heard explosions.

Hahahahah – i love it.

Heres another fact: it is a fact that planes were seen hitting the towers by witnesses and we know this by reading their testimony or by watching the event on tv, but according to you

No, whats a FACT is that they CLAIM to have seen planes hitting the towers as if to say it is NOT A FACT that the planes hit the buildings!!!

Your simply wrong my friend – the FACT was the EVENT that they were describing through their TESTIMONY which is also a FACT.

It is a fact that explosions were heard. It is also a fact that they claimed to have heard explosions. This means that what YOU said.

not a single explosion is heard

I have no idea if ANY explosions were heard at all

is factual incorrect, not true, and should be withdrawn immediately.

I'm not saying they are lying, I'm saying they are most likely wrong

So if they are not lying that they heard an explosion then they DID HEAR AN EXPLOSION that is WHY, dont you think, THEY WOULD CLAIM TO HAVE HEARD AN EXPLOSION. So if they are not lying that they heard and claimed to have heard an explosion you should consider withdrawing the statements below

not a single explosion is heard
I have no idea if ANY explosions were heard at all

This no-explosion-heard nonsense should not have been left to me to correct. Again it demonstrates the fraternal mentality in this forum.

Of course they could be mistaken or wrong regarding what caused the explosion, but the experience of the explosion itself is not a question of right or wrong – it is a matter experience - did it happen or not. Because you admit they are not lying that means the experience of the explosion DID HAPPEN.

Why do people CLAIM to hear or see something??? Answer me that please. Heres a wild guess – may be they did actually hear or see something!!!

And if your going to mock my reading ability or lack of, perhaps you should not be so keen as to explain where it was you were taught your english – (watching television in the 80’s).

thewholesoul

4th January 2008, 08:50 AM

Is thewholesoul actually arguing that a airplane traveling over 400 mph and carrying thousands of gallons of fuel won't create a gigantic fireball upon impact lacking some sort of external "ignition source"? :jaw-dropp

And btw, still waiting for that "alternative hypothesis".

according to Edward McCabe B4 he felt building move a little (assuming that was caused by the impact of a plane) it was 30 seconds later than an explosion occured in the basment.

the freight elevator (car 50) was not obliterated from a fireball

felipe morelli heard the explosion below and was later burnt from heat

nobody here is saying that the fuel wont great a gignatic fireball - it did - we all saw it.

but what your suggesting - which is wrong - is that this initial fireball travelled down the elevator shaft and exploded in the basement.

if this was true then
(a) one would expect the explosion in the basement to have occured before 30 secs.
(b) one would expect the freight car to be obliterated from the fireball bursting down the elevator
(c) one would expect felipe david to be burnt before he heard the explosion below because he was standing in front of the freight elevator the fireball you are claiming travelled down.
(d) if were seriously looking for answers to what really happened that day you would not propose silly ideas that are not even supported within the official hypotheis that you yourself claim to defend.

what the official hypothesis claims is that jet fuel deflagration was responsible for the explosion in the basement. that means that jet fuel or vapor travelled down the elevator and was ignited by some heat source other than the initial fireball you suggested.

thewholesoul

4th January 2008, 08:52 AM

Is thewholesoul actually arguing that a airplane traveling over 400 mph and carrying thousands of gallons of fuel won't create a gigantic fireball upon impact lacking some sort of external "ignition source"? :jaw-dropp

And btw, still waiting for that "alternative hypothesis".

according to Edward McCabe B4 he felt building move a little (assuming that was caused by the impact of a plane) it was 30 seconds later than an explosion occured in the basment.

the freight elevator (car 50) was not obliterated from a fireball

felipe David heard the explosion below and was later burnt from heat

nobody here is saying that the fuel wont great a gignatic fireball - it did - we all saw it.

but what your suggesting - which is wrong - is that this initial fireball travelled down the elevator shaft and exploded in the basement.

if this was true then
(a) one would expect the explosion in the basement to have occured before 30 secs.
(b) one would expect the freight car to be obliterated from the fireball bursting down the elevator
(c) one would expect felipe david to be burnt before he heard the explosion below because he was standing in front of the freight elevator the fireball you are claiming travelled down.
(d) if were seriously looking for answers to what really happened that day you would not propose silly ideas that are not even supported within the official hypotheis that you yourself claim to defend.

what the official hypothesis claims is that jet fuel deflagration was responsible for the explosion in the basement. that means that jet fuel or vapor travelled down the elevator and was ignited by some heat source other than the initial fireball you suggested.

Totovader

4th January 2008, 09:01 AM

thewholesoul

why are you stealing other peoples quotes and words and arguments?

are you not intelligent to come up with your own?

unless you are jim hoffman, you are stealing his words straight from his shambles of a paper

are you going to admit you are he, give him proper a cite, or admit you are trying to pull the wool over our eyes?

i would like to think you will do the right thing here and not creep any further into dishonesty

It's not the first time thewholesoul has plagiarized someone else's work. I caught him doing the same thing before (in post #950 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3288016&postcount=950))

His response?

so now i am the plagorist for reading a phd paper and using its references.

Clearly, he does not understand the implications of stealing other people's work.

Belz...

4th January 2008, 10:45 AM

I think we are experiencing a communications break down or something Belz.

Apparently, the words on your computer screen aren't those I type...

If you re-read carefully your own statement above the important parts highlighted in bold you are obviously, plainly, and clearly suggesting that because the official hypothisis is not accepted by some does not mean that the official hypothesis is not proven.

Exactly, which counters your implied argument that because some doubt it, it should be put to the test again.

meaning that you believe the official hypothesis is proven

That's a non sequitur. The sentence you quoted: "That [the 'official' theory] is not accepted by some does not mean it isn't proven", does not mean that I believe it IS proven. That I believe it is of no consequence.

which suggests to me that you are basing acceptance of the official hypothesis as "one ground" upon which the official hypothesis is already proven.

Well, isn't that ANOTHER non sequitur ? When most professionals in a given field accept a given theory, it's not like an argument from popularity. It may not be proof that something is true, but it's sure better than a popular poll.

total collapse was never tested - you could perhaps withdraw this statement aswell if you like.

I think I'll stick with it, in fact. You have not, nor has anyone, provided an alternative theory that holds under scrutiny. We KNOW that things fall down, and, aside from twoofers, most people know that when something that big falls down, no man-made structure will withstand it. That's why skyscrapers are usually built to hold a STATIC mass, not a moving one.

Apart from 911 the primary reason steel-framed skyscraper’s totally collapsed was due to controlled demolition. To my mind that makes it a pretty rational and plausible explanation for the events.

And THAT would be a fallacy:

1.) Some As are Bs
2.) X is an A
3.) Therefore X is a B

Add the complete lack of evidence, and you've got a loser, here.

Just a second ago you were claiming that terrorists flying two planes into the towers were actually conducting a scientific experiment.

Sarcasm is not an argument.

Now your saying that no experimnet is required because total callapse was inevitable post initial collapse.

Now ? I've been telling you this for ages.

If indeed you all agree it could not be stopped (which of course is an untrue statement) then surely it would be easy to demonstrate this natural phenomena through tests and experimentation.

Sure, it would be, but it's be a pretty expensive test for something we already know is true, by experience. YOU're the one asking for an investigation. Why don't YOU fund the test ?

Wrong. The burden of proof is on any person who endorses a particualr hypothesis.

You have no idea what "burden of proof" is, then. If you think I have to prove the Earth is round every time a flat earther comes along, you're mistaken.

if you believe that only defenders of alternative hypothesis have a burden of prove then you are practising an unacceptable double standard.

Soul, you have NO IDEA how science works.

No i linked videos here they are again. 9/11 Twin Towers: Bomb in the lobby!
Account of North Tower Explosions from the New Jersey Shore.
9/11: Total Proof That Bombs Were Planted In The Buildings

Those are not links. Those are words in a post. There is no hyperlink, and I won't chase phantoms.

If you disagree that an explosion can be heard in all three of these videos then tell me what should an explosion sound like

Well, that's the crux of your problem, isn't it ? How do you distinguish an explosion from any other, loud, sudden noise ?

Hahahahah – i love it.

You simply have a very poor grasp of English.

People claim to have heard explosions. Did they ? Did they hear a very loud noise and they think it was an explosion ? Did they hear someone say there was an explosion and are retrofitting their memories ? I don't know. That's why I can't say that any explosions were heard. Please learn to read.

No, whats a FACT is that they CLAIM to have seen planes hitting the towers as if to say it is NOT A FACT that the planes hit the buildings!!!

Precisely. The people who saw planes hitting the towers CLAIM that they saw planes hit the towers. Of course, we have an insurmountable mountain of evidence showing that those same planes DID hit the towers. Case closed.

Your simply wrong my friend – the FACT was the EVENT that they were describing through their TESTIMONY which is also a FACT.

Then you must believe in UFOs, fairies and multiple omnipotent gods.

is factual incorrect, not true, and should be withdrawn immediately.

I don't play games, Soul. If you can't understand English, logic and evidence, that isn't my problem.

So if they are not lying that they heard an explosion then they DID HEAR AN EXPLOSION

False dichotomy. I explained other possibilities above.

that is WHY, dont you think, THEY WOULD CLAIM TO HAVE HEARD AN EXPLOSION. So if they are not lying that they heard and claimed to have heard an explosion you should consider withdrawing the statements below

Non sequitur.

This no-explosion-heard nonsense should not have been left to me to correct. Again it demonstrates the fraternal mentality in this forum.

Don't try to put me in the same bag as everybody else. If you want me to debate you on a seperate thread I will gladly do so.

Because you admit they are not lying that means the experience of the explosion DID HAPPEN.

Bolding mine.

Yes. You got THAT right.

And if your going to mock my reading ability or lack of, perhaps you should not be so keen as to explain where it was you were taught your english – (watching television in the 80’s).

At least I can understand the language and write it properly, most of the time.

thewholesoul

4th January 2008, 11:45 AM

yet there is no other evidence for this incendiary? stick to what we know was available for the fire triangle please
there is evidence and i will be presenting an argument from steven jones at a later date.
there is proof that thermite reactions can be a source of ignition when in contact with fuel in the youtube video i posted previously
there is confirmation by explosives experts that incendary devices can be an ignition source for jet fuel.
I will stcik to evidence, proof and confirmation and the fire triangle
Assume? Why must we assume anything? tell me what was in the B2 B3 levels?
We must assume that the correct fuel/air ratio was present in the B2-3 level because it was never proven that jet fuel falling the height of 90+ floors will be sufficiently or excessively oxygenated when it reaches the B2-3 level likewise for the south tower where the jet fuel fell from a lower height and shorter distance.
Now i could be wrong, may be there is calculations out there that suggest the rate of oxygenation of a droplet of fuel falling at a certain speed – but i have not read anything like that or heard NIST presenting anything as such.
However the rate of oxygenation of descending fuel seems to me an irrelevant none issue for you – and i can admit that you would know better on this subject.
Good question, what was in the B2-3 levels? I think many described it as the mechanical rooms. What these machines were responsible for i have no idea. But if you are trying to suggest that the machines were the ignition source then you would have to make the argument that the machines were somehow in the elevator shaft.
But maybe the jet fuel vapor did seep through the doors into the B2-3 level? But i heard on loose change that the elevator shaft was airtight thus it would not permit escaping gas or vapour into the floors below unless there was some kind of local damage to the structure.
thought you knew about LEL's? what about UEL's?
I have no idea what a UEL is. If you are trying to answer the question by highlighting my lack of knowledge in a subject that you teach then you have succeeded. but if you could be so kind as to explain in laymans terms “what is the range of fuel/air ratio in terms of being flammable?” because the little i do know about the fire triangle is that you need air, fuel and heat source. If there is no air then there will be no explosion, if there is no fuel there will be no explosion. And if there is no heat source then it is unlikely there will an explosion unless the fuel self-ignites.
no, that would be implausible, you are incorrect
Why would it be implausible in you opinion? Am i and EDL incorrect when we say that a thermite reaction or incendray devices can be an ignition source for jet fuel? If you are saying they cannot be used as an ignition source then present your reasons.
How do we make an exact replica scaled for all the possible sources of ignition? Every switch, lamp, relay etc etc that was inside the lift shaft? or the B2/3 area?
Well one way to make an exact replica is to do just that – make an exact replica. But we both know that is not feasible.
The sources of ignition you outlined i.e. switch, lamp, relay could be easily tested in isolation you do not have to test every switch to discover that it could be a source of ignition. However it is important that in such an experiment the identical kind of switch etc be tested and that the switch be in the identical position it was located in the twin towers relative to the descending jet fuel. It is importnat to replicate the conditions as closely as possible.
If your only reason against experimentations of possible ignition sources is that we cannot build a scale strcuture then what is your objection to building a partial structure or testing the identcial ignition sources in isolation with jet fuel?
PS from EDL site, after all there help they still could not come up with a definite source of ignition for TWA 800. Could they prove it in the Towers?
First of all NIST – never even tried to find the ignition source in the basement eventhough a mid-air, non-local ignition of descending jet fuel occured in the same location of both towers in the backdrop of witnesses claiming that this explosion in the basement was in fact a “bomb”!!
Second – i was aware that EDL did not come up with a definite source of ignition from flight TWA 800 and that NIST likewise did not find a defintie source of ignition – but may be you could help me explain that to others in this room who beleive that NIST has proven that the explosion in the basment was caused by falling debris, light bulbs etc.
Yes EDL did not find a definite source of ignition but they did at least try to discover what is was. After they tested through lab experiments, simulations and ¼ scale models they arrived at the most probable causes. Name one lab test simulation or scale model NIST has conducted in order to determine what caused the “explosion” in the basment B2-3 that somehow were actually there considered a “bomb”?? let me tell you how many – zero!!
Third – once an extensive amount of tests has been carried out and after such exhaustive and thorough investigation a definite source of ignition has not been discovered only then do we arrive at the “most probable cause” explanation behind the explosion in the basment. then we have to address the question why incendary devices or a thermite rection could not possibly be an ignition source of jet fuel – or probable causal explanation behind the explosion in the basement.
They work with NTSB and the FAA. Do you agree with the findings from NTSB and the FAA about 911?
Well when i went to NTSB website i found this:
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and any material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI. The Safety Board does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The Safety Board did not determine the probable cause and does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and any material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI
I did find lots of documents about the flight path of the hijacked planes and air trafficn control recordings as listed below
Document 1: NTSB report, "Flight Path Study-American Airlines Flight 11," Feb. 19, 2002 [Chapter 1, The 9/11 Commission Report, "We Have Some Planes." Footnotes 23, 33]

Document 2: NTSB report, "Flight Path Study-American Airlines Flight 77," Feb. 19, 2002 [Chapter 1, The 9/11 Commission Report, "We Have Some Planes." Footnote 53]

Document 3: NTSB report, "Flight Path Study-United Airlines 175," Feb. 19, 2002 [Chapter 1, The 9/11 Commission Report, "We Have Some Planes." Footnote 41]

Document 4: NTSB report, "Specialist's Factual Report of Investigation-Digital Flight Data Recorder" for United Airlines Flight 93, Feb. 15, 2002 [Chapter 1, The 9/11 Commission Report, "We Have Some Planes." Footnotes 70, 71]

Document 5: NTSB report, Air Traffic Control Recording-American Airlines Flight 11, Dec. 21, 2001 [Chapter 1, The 9/11 Commission Report, "We Have Some Planes." Footnote 24]

Document 6: NTSB report, Air Traffic Control Recording-American Airlines Flight 77, Dec. 21, 2001 [Chapter 1, The 9/11 Commission Report, "We Have Some Planes." Footnote 54]

Document 7: NTSB report, Air Traffic Control Recording-United Airlines Flight 175, Dec. 21, 2001 [Chapter 1, The 9/11 Commission Report, "We Have Some Planes." Footnotes 24, 41, 42, 44]

Document 8: NTSB report, Air Traffic Control Recording-United Airlines Flight 93, Dec. 21, 2001 [Chapter 1, The 9/11 Commission Report, "We Have Some Planes." Footnote 71]
But i found nothing – no information – about tests or experiments carried out by the NTSB concerning the explosion of jet fuel in the basement. NTSB is required by Congressional mandate to investigate airline disasters, but, due to the fact that a crime was committed, the usual independent investigative work resulting from an airline disaster was preempted by the FBI, leaving NTSB as a mere "technical advisor". http:www.justice for911.org
If there is a public report on the aviation diaster in the wtc perhaps you could direct me to a link.
As for the FAA they too have been rather secretive and they continue to withhold pre-911 ID confrming aircraft serial number data of 911 planes.

They are ideas but they show you have no idea what you are talking about
So you think the shotgun with the fireproof in a wooden box was a good idea??? Tell me why you believe that NIST’s shotgun experiment was better than the proposals i made to experiment on jet fuel. Please tell me why you think my proposals are bad ideas – not feasible – and how they show my lack of knowledge in the subject area in question.
For what you want to achieve, it is. Do they do full scale or small scale mock up tests of every plane crash to prove the failure?
I agree i suspect they would not conduct “full scale or small scale mock up tests of every plane crash to prove the failure” – but I fail to see how testing a lamp, relay motor, or burning debris cannot be recontructed. I want to see – have it demonstrated to me – that jet fuel vapor will be ignited by these sources. These ignition sources must be identical models, in the identical location relative to the elevators design parameters. The elevator itself could be a scale model of two storeys high. If not a partial model of the elevator could be made.
I would like to know the exact design parameters inside the elevator shaft, whether for example, these sources were actually exposed to the descending jet fuel.
NIST or anyone else for that matter has not tested or demonstrated what could have been the source of ignition in the basement. They have speculated.
And? It is my job to understand and work in these areas, it is my bread and butter. I know more than you yet you doubt me. Why should I not doubt them?
I am not doubting your credentials. I know you know more about this subject than myself. If you are saying that simple experiments cannot be achieved you have to provide convincing reasons. So far all you have provided is scaling problems which i dont actually believe is a major obstacle in terms of testing ignition sources of jet fuel.
You can doubt whoever you like – thats your right. I have a sneeky suspicion you even doubt me!! Doubt is healthy and i wish more people in this room would share my doubt in the official hypothesis.
You think this is a joke?
Yes i thought it was a joke.
I asked what caused it not whether it was an accident of intentional? What do you think the most probable source of ignition could be in this gas explosion?
It was a fixed question. when you see a gas explosion in someones house what do you think is the most likely cause of the ignition?

First – your already telling me what the cause was and then you ask me what i think it was eventhough you already made it perfectly obvious that it was caused by gas!!

Second – i object to the context or setting of the question. Why dont you use a skyscrapper building that was previously attacked and has a history of terrorist bombs instead of a nice little neighbourly house where gas explosions are not unheard of.

Third – your question ignores the fire triangle that you teach your students about. Yes we have the gas (fuel), yes have the air (oxygen), but what was the ignition source? You seem to sugegst in your question that the gas – was the ignition source – which is in violation of the fire triangle unless it somehow self-ignited. So to answer your question what was the ignition source of the gas – it could have been a thermite reaction or an incendary device. It is a fact that prior to 911 thermite has been used in arson http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/d/a-study-of-some-issues-raised-in-a-paper-by-wood-&-reynolds-by-frank-legge.pdf

In truth what was the ignition source in the house example could have been a variety of possible to probable causes. Without an investigation it is impossible to prove anything

thewholesoul

4th January 2008, 12:18 PM

TheSoleHole thanks for making our point

hahahahha - it that right?

lets see that quote again

Outside a legal context, “burden of proof” means that someone suggesting a “new theory or stating a claim” must provide eivdence to support it: it is not sufficient to say “you can’t disprove this”. Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else’s responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because “not X” cannot be proven (negative proof).

ok i understand you did not bother to read the whole post# 1047 but instead opted for a liitle dig - and a weak one at that. But let us examine the above quote in relation to the official hypothesis.

new theory: tell me. when was the progressive global collapse theory first invented? pre or post 911? the fact that previous to 911 no steel framed skyscrappers exhibted a progressive global collapse - this "new theory" was aptly invented. was it ever proven? - no.

claim: once intial collapse occured total collapse was inevitable. was this claim - some would say bold claim - ever proven? no

so, like i said and the quote that you used above says the burdern of proof means the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. Therefore the burden of proof rests on defenders of the official hypothesis AND advocates of alternative hypothesis. if the bold claim - once intial collapse occured total collapse was inevitable – has been proven then who proved it and did they use the scientific method? It wasnt....

moreover, you kindly made the predictable and unacceptable “double-standard” which i discussed in my post#1047 which basically asserts that advocates of controlled demolition must prove how the towers could survive the initial collapse but advocates of the official hypothesis do not have to prove how the towers could not survive the initial collapse. It seems to me in both our interests if we could prove this bold claim one way or another. Those who resist or object to this claim ever being proven cannot be said to respect the scientific method.

So next time you want to make a little dig – and least put your back into it.

thewholesoul

4th January 2008, 12:31 PM

What you refer to as "the official hypothesis", a term of which only the first word is accurate

"the"?

but seriously why do you not consider the official hypothesis - a hypothesis - and specifically in relation to the total collapse.

you're suggesting that attempts to understand the mechanism by which certain events occurred are equivalent to complete lack of knowledge of the basic sequence of events.

no that is a strawman. to argue, as i have done, that the official hypothesis remains unproven does not mean that some aspects of the official hypothesis have been proven, that is, there is a complete lack of knowledge.

Such an equation can only be suggested by those without the slightest vestige of a sense of proportion.

now i dont know what sense of proportion you use - but when roughly 4/5 of the portion of a building is demolished i would say that is a rather significiant proportion that needs to be investigated, explained and eventually proven.

besides gven that they were the first three steel frame skyskrapeprs even to exhibit a global collapse - i think, proportionally, that was an extermemly rare occurance and ever purported explanation or hypothesis needs to be proven.

thewholesoul

4th January 2008, 12:39 PM

Clearly, he does not understand the implications of stealing other people's work.

i only "borrowed" it. i will ring jim hoffman personally and inform him of my actions.

besides when are you going to apologise for disrespecting family members who you happen to disagree with??? i am betting never.

Belz...

4th January 2008, 01:25 PM

hahahahha - it that right?

Yes, that it right.

new theory: tell me. when was the progressive global collapse theory first invented? pre or post 911?

It must've been invented pretty much at the same time we started to build stuff. That was a long time ago.

the fact that previous to 911 no steel framed skyscrappers exhibted a progressive global collapse - this "new theory" was aptly invented.

Oh, so now it's steel-framed skyscrapers. So, according to you, concrete-core skyscrapers can collapse, bridges can collapse, houses can collapse, and all other forms can, and have, collapsed, but not steel towers because we build them well enough for them not to have collapsed before 9/11 ??

claim: once intial collapse occured total collapse was inevitable. was this claim - some would say bold claim - ever proven? no

Yes. That YOU don't accept the conclusion doesn't make it false. Again, with the burden of proof.

Galileo was right, but he had to prove it.

thewholesoul

4th January 2008, 02:05 PM

Exactly, which counters your implied argument that because some doubt it, it should be put to the test again.

Please, quote me, when did i argue that because some people disagree with the official hypothesis that it should be proven???

To repeat, again, the reason why the official hypothesis remains unproven is because the official hypothesis in relation to the total collapse has not been tested.

That's a non sequitur. The sentence you quoted: "That [the 'official' theory] is not accepted by some does not mean it isn't proven", does not mean that I believe it IS proven. That I believe it is of no consequence.

So do you beleive the official hypotehsis is proven? Or do you beleive it is of no consequence?

Well, isn't that ANOTHER non sequitur? When most professionals in a given field accept a given theory, it's not like an argument from popularity. It may not be proof that something is true, but it's sure better than a popular poll.

Great – progress has been made. Finally you accept that even when the majority of professionals agree on a particular hypothesis that in itself does not prove that something is true. My thoughts exactly.

To give a side example – all priests accept the existence of god but they cannot prove god exists. Conversly however the majority of experts believe that total collapse was inevitable post initial collapse – currently NIST claims that it cannot be proven either by scale model or computer model.

I said total collapse was never tested – that you could perhaps withdraw this statement
You replied
I think I'll stick with it, in fact. You have not, nor has anyone, provided an alternative theory that holds under scrutiny. We KNOW that things fall down, and, aside from twoofers, most people know that when something that big falls down, no man-made structure will withstand it. That's why skyscrapers are usually built to hold a STATIC mass, not a moving one.

Now instead of withdrawing your false statement – that total collapse was tested – you say you’ll stick with it. Eventhough it is a known fact that it has never been tested?? So why do you continue to stick to a statement that is factual wrong?

The first reason you provide as to why you will stick to a factually incoorect statement is because no-one has provided an alternative theory that you find rationally satisfying. But what, may i ask, has that got to do with your factually incorrect claim that total collapse was tested?

The next reason you provide as to why you will stick to a factually incorrect statement is because, you say, “we know that things fall down” – really, i ahd no idea – then you make a claim, in effect, that total collapse was inevitable post initial collapse which was the reason i asked that you withdraw the factually incorrect statement in the first place!! BECAUSE THAT CLAIM WAS NEVER TESTED.

So let me get this straight – the reason you refuse to withdraw a factual incorrect statement – total collapse has been tested - is because you dont agree with alternative hypothesis, you know that things fall, and because you repeat the claim that total collapse was inevitable – which was precisely the subject of the statement that needs to be withdrawn. Way to go.

The only logical way you can maintain your position and statement – the only logical way – is if you can provide just one example or experiment when the total collapse has been tested. merely saying, claiming and assuming that it is inevitable DOES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING FOR YOU.

Moving on,
Because the primary reason (apart from earthquakes, missiles and nuclear bombs) a steel-framed skyscrapper totally collapsed in the history of such buildings was due to controlled demolition. I thought this was a petty good reason or plausible explanation for why we observed three such skyscappers totally collapsing on sept 11th – but i have made a fallacy!!

1.) Some A’s are B’s
2.) X is an A
3.) Therefore X is a B!!

So what Belz is suggesting here is that i am asserting that because “some” total collapses (A’s) were caused by controlled demolition (B’s) that the total collapse on sept 11th (X) “must therefore be” a controlled demolition (B)

First error: “some” is a rather cautious expression or remarkable understatement once we consider that every, or the vast majority, of steel framed skyscrappers in the history of steel framed skyscrappers exhibited total collapse resulting from controlled demolition. “some” have been caused by earthquakes, missiles etc. ( i have no exact numbers but i assuming that the majority of total collapses did result from controlled demolition). And “none” prior to 911 resulted from fire and gravity.

Second error: “must therefore be controlled demolition” – no, i think i suggested that controlled demolition must be “a plausible explanation” for what we observed. It should of at least been investigated and included among the working hypotheses.

Third: let us examine Belz reasoning. Prior and since 911 there HAS BEEN NO EXAMPLES OF TOTAL COLLAPSE DUE TO FIRE AND GRAVITY. So...

1)prior to 911 NOT ONE A’s (total collapse of skyscrapper) were B’s (were caused by fire and gravity)
2)X (total collapse of wtc on sept 11th) is an A (total collapse of skyscrapper)
3)Therefore X is B (therefore the total collapse of the wtc skyscrapper resulted from something that never happened in the history of steel framed skyscrappers!!!)

By reasoning from experience – on a posteriori grounds – the controlled demolition hypothesis is far stronger than the fire and gravity hypothesis yet it was ignored and never investigated.

to be clear i am not sugegsting that because the majority of total collapse of steel framed skyscrappers prior to 911 were caused by controlled demolition means that the total collapse of wtc was controlled demolition. i am making a weaker claim that it is a more plausible explanation or hypothesis based on our experinece of total collapse of steel framed skyscrappers.

complete lack of evidence

There is no lack of evidence – there is an abundance of evidence – this evidence however is disputed. go to any 911 truth website for all the evidence they claim supports the controlled demolition hypothesis.

you will get you chance to dispute such evidence when i present my argument.

thewholesoul

4th January 2008, 02:56 PM

Sarcasm is not an argument.

Claiming that total collapse was tested when the terrorists hijacked planes and hit the towers is not an experiment.

I said now your saying that no experiment is required

You reply Now ? I've been telling you this for ages.

Are most likely your going to continue saying it. But what your not telling me is how the bold claim - total collapse was inevitable post initial collapse – is somehow proven without experimentation??? That is my point you continue to ignore.

Sure, it would be, but it's be a pretty expensive test for something we already know is true, by experience. YOU're the one asking for an investigation. Why don't YOU fund the test ?

So according to you it would be easy to demonstrate - a total collapse post initial collapse – yet NIST or anyone else for that matter has been unable to demostrate or test this bold claim.

Yes it would be expensive. no i dont have to pay for the official hypothesis to be proven. The burden of proof rests on defenders of the official hypothesis to prove their hypothesis, the burden of proof rests on defenders of controlled demolition to prove their hypothesis. see post #1047.

“Something we already know is true” – really how did you arrive at this conclusion? Through “experience”!!! so you are claiming that fire and gravity caused the total collapse of wtc and you know this to be true because never – not once – in the history of steel framed skyscrappers was total collapse caused by fire and gravity!!
Eventhough you or anyone else has never “experienced” this phenomena before you believe it to be true because you “experienced” it through observation despite the fact that this observation has never been tested. wow.

Man if i was a magician i would love to have you in my audience – hey Belz i am going to make this rabbit dissappear and eventhough this is the first time ever you have experienced a rabbit dissapearing into tin air – and eventhough their is no other example of rabbits dissappearing into tin air – you will believe that it truly happened.
I will believe the official hypothesis is true by “experimentation” when their bold claim that total colalpse is inevitable post initial collapse is tested either through experimentation or demonstarted by computer model.

You have no idea what "burden of proof" is, then. If you think I have to prove the Earth is round every time a flat earther comes along, you're mistaken.

So you are saying that those who endorse a particualr hypothesis are not responsible to prove their own theory. I think it is you who needs to understand what the burden of proof is – see post #1047

“If you think I have to prove the Earth is round every time a flat earther comes along” - dont be absurd.

First of all the claim that Earth is round has already been proven to be true by experimentation. Once it was proven it does not have to proven over and over again.
Second – the claim that total collapse is inevitable post initial collapse has not been proven to be true by experimentation – get it???? Now just who do you think is responsible for proving this claim? I would say the burden of proof rests on those who make this claim!!!!!!!

Soul, you have NO IDEA how science works.

Belz i am arguing for the scientific method. You are arguing that it is not necessary, that the scientific method is not applicable to the official hypothesis. You are mistaken when you confuse the observation of a phenomena (total collapse of twin towers) with experimentation of that phenomena!! You sir, have no idea what your talking about much less how science works.

funk de fino

4th January 2008, 03:26 PM

there is evidence and i will be presenting an argument from steven jones at a later date.
there is proof that thermite reactions can be a source of ignition when in contact with fuel in the youtube video i posted previously
there is confirmation by explosives experts that incendary devices can be an ignition source for jet fuel.
I will stcik to evidence, proof and confirmation and the fire triangle

there is no evidence of thermite at WTC, dont lie, leave steven jones out of it, he is a liar

We must assume that the correct fuel/air ratio was present in the B2-3 level because it was never proven that jet fuel falling the height of 90+ floors will be sufficiently or excessively oxygenated when it reaches the B2-3 level likewise for the south tower where the jet fuel fell from a lower height and shorter distance.
Now i could be wrong, may be there is calculations out there that suggest the rate of oxygenation of a droplet of fuel falling at a certain speed – but i have not read anything like that or heard NIST presenting anything as such.
However the rate of oxygenation of descending fuel seems to me an irrelevant none issue for you – and i can admit that you would know better on this subject.

Again you display your ignorance. i will discuss this no further

Good question, what was in the B2-3 levels? I think many described it as the mechanical rooms. What these machines were responsible for i have no idea. But if you are trying to suggest that the machines were the ignition source then you would have to make the argument that the machines were somehow in the elevator shaft.

Machines? electricity? sparks? They need not be in the elevator shaft

But maybe the jet fuel vapor did seep through the doors into the B2-3 level? But i heard on loose change that the elevator shaft was airtight thus it would not permit escaping gas or vapour into the floors below unless there was some kind of local damage to the structure.

Astonishing display of ignorance. If an elevator shaft is airtight the lift could not move up and down. The occupants would have no air to breathe. The fuel can easily slip past the lift and escape as a vapour at the bottom.

Please tell me you understand that elevator shafts are not hermetically sealed

I have no idea what a UEL is. If you are trying to answer the question by highlighting my lack of knowledge in a subject that you teach then you have succeeded. but if you could be so kind as to explain in laymans terms “what is the range of fuel/air ratio in terms of being flammable?” because the little i do know about the fire triangle is that you need air, fuel and heat source. If there is no air then there will be no explosion, if there is no fuel there will be no explosion. And if there is no heat source then it is unlikely there will an explosion unless the fuel self-ignites.

Maybe you should have thought about your lack of knowledge on this subject before you started railing on here about ignition sources, fuel vapours etc

LEL = Lower Explosive Limit
UEL = Upper Explosive Limit

between these levels you have an explosive atmosphere that could be ignited with heat or spark. this is your ratio. look it up online if you want to know jet fuels, it will feel good to do your own research instread of stealing hoffmans

Why would it be implausible in you opinion? Am i and EDL incorrect when we say that a thermite reaction or incendray devices can be an ignition source for jet fuel? If you are saying they cannot be used as an ignition source then present your reasons.

Implausible due to lack of evidence. Not due to the fact they cannot be used.

Well one way to make an exact replica is to do just that – make an exact replica. But we both know that is not feasible.
The sources of ignition you outlined i.e. switch, lamp, relay could be easily tested in isolation you do not have to test every switch to discover that it could be a source of ignition. However it is important that in such an experiment the identical kind of switch etc be tested and that the switch be in the identical position it was located in the twin towers relative to the descending jet fuel. It is importnat to replicate the conditions as closely as possible.

Again this is a fantasy scenario and there is no need. Switches can and do cause ignition. The systems I work with have special safeguards in place for use in explosive atmospheres. The ones in the Towers did not

If your only reason against experimentations of possible ignition sources is that we cannot build a scale strcuture then what is your objection to building a partial structure or testing the identcial ignition sources in isolation with jet fuel?

See above

First of all NIST – never even tried to find the ignition source in the basement eventhough a mid-air, non-local ignition of descending jet fuel occured in the same location of both towers in the backdrop of witnesses claiming that this explosion in the basement was in fact a “bomb”!!
Second – i was aware that EDL did not come up with a definite source of ignition from flight TWA 800 and that NIST likewise did not find a defintie source of ignition – but may be you could help me explain that to others in this room who beleive that NIST has proven that the explosion in the basment was caused by falling debris, light bulbs etc.
Yes EDL did not find a definite source of ignition but they did at least try to discover what is was. After they tested through lab experiments, simulations and ¼ scale models they arrived at the most probable causes. Name one lab test simulation or scale model NIST has conducted in order to determine what caused the “explosion” in the basment B2-3 that somehow were actually there considered a “bomb”?? let me tell you how many – zero!!
Third – once an extensive amount of tests has been carried out and after such exhaustive and thorough investigation a definite source of ignition has not been discovered only then do we arrive at the “most probable cause” explanation behind the explosion in the basment. then we have to address the question why incendary devices or a thermite rection could not possibly be an ignition source of jet fuel – or probable causal explanation behind the explosion in the basement.

They do not have to find an ignition source there are literally thousands of them all around everyone of us everyday. There were even more in the Towers due to the plane crash.

I did find lots of documents about the flight path of the hijacked planes and air trafficn control recordings as listed below But i found nothing – no information – about tests or experiments carried out by the NTSB concerning the explosion of jet fuel in the basement. NTSB is required by Congressional mandate to investigate airline disasters, but, due to the fact that a crime was committed, the usual independent investigative work resulting from an airline disaster was preempted by the FBI, leaving NTSB as a mere "technical advisor". http:www.justice for911.org
If there is a public report on the aviation diaster in the wtc perhaps you could direct me to a link.

Do you believe everything NTSB report about what happened that day?

If not why not?

As for the FAA they too have been rather secretive and they continue to withhold pre-911 ID confrming aircraft serial number data of 911 planes.

Source? Reason?

So you think the shotgun with the fireproof in a wooden box was a good idea??? Tell me why you believe that NIST’s shotgun experiment was better than the proposals i made to experiment on jet fuel. Please tell me why you think my proposals are bad ideas – not feasible – and how they show my lack of knowledge in the subject area in question.

I am not judging NIST, you are. They are better at what they do than you or me. Deal with it.

I agree i suspect they would not conduct “full scale or small scale mock up tests of every plane crash to prove the failure” – but I fail to see how testing a lamp, relay motor, or burning debris cannot be recontructed. I want to see – have it demonstrated to me – that jet fuel vapor will be ignited by these sources. These ignition sources must be identical models, in the identical location relative to the elevators design parameters. The elevator itself could be a scale model of two storeys high. If not a partial model of the elevator could be made.
I would like to know the exact design parameters inside the elevator shaft, whether for example, these sources were actually exposed to the descending jet fuel.
NIST or anyone else for that matter has not tested or demonstrated what could have been the source of ignition in the basement. They have speculated.

They speculated based on previous knowledge. EDL speculated on TWA800 yet you crow about them? What is the difference? You know you know it?

I am not doubting your credentials. I know you know more about this subject than myself. If you are saying that simple experiments cannot be achieved you have to provide convincing reasons. So far all you have provided is scaling problems which i dont actually believe is a major obstacle in terms of testing ignition sources of jet fuel.

Again, you have no idea. You do not need scaling to know that an electrical switch will cause the correct explosive atmosphere to ignite.

I'll give you a little clue here. The systems I use are IS circuits. The power is limited in the circuit to have insufficient power in the electrical circuit so that if there is an explosive atmosphere present it cannot ignite it.

These circuits operate on 4 to 20 mA current and 24 VDC. Do you understand how low this is?

Now tell me what most mains voltages are in lighting and mains rings in the USA. These also would not have been by anyway near the highest voltages or power ranges in the building.

Any single spark from any circuit in the towers will cause the fuel/air vapour to ignite. This is discounting the plane debris. Do you know how filaments in lamps work? Do you know how switches work? Do you know how hot some machinery in the towers can run at? Do you know how high the voltage is of Static Electricity discharge is when you can feel it?

You can doubt whoever you like – thats your right. I have a sneeky suspicion you even doubt me!! Doubt is healthy and i wish more people in this room would share my doubt in the official hypothesis.

Show some real evidence you may get some doubters.

Yes i thought it was a joke. 911 is no joke

It was a fixed question.

No, its not. You have many variables you could have named as to be the cause of the ignition of the esplosive atmosphere

First – your already telling me what the cause was and then you ask me what i think it was eventhough you already made it perfectly obvious that it was caused by gas!!

No, I did not tell you what the cause was. I said there was a gas explosion. This gives you two of the ingredients. Gas and oxygen. I asked what could have caused the ignition.

Second – i object to the context or setting of the question. Why dont you use a skyscrapper building that was previously attacked and has a history of terrorist bombs instead of a nice little neighbourly house where gas explosions are not unheard of.

Object all you like. I am asking a simple question about a simple situation. It needs no context. All I am looking for is what you think may have caused the ignition of the explosive atmosphere.

Third – your question ignores the fire triangle that you teach your students about. Yes we have the gas (fuel), yes have the air (oxygen), but what was the ignition source? You seem to sugegst in your question that the gas – was the ignition source – which is in violation of the fire triangle unless it somehow self-ignited. So to answer your question what was the ignition source of the gas – it could have been a thermite reaction or an incendary device. It is a fact that prior to 911 thermite has been used in arson http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/d/a-study-of-some-issues-raised-in-a-paper-by-wood-&-reynolds-by-frank-legge.pdf

No it does not ignore the fire triangle. It only shows you up to know even less and be worse with your english than I already imagined. I gave you two sides of the fire triangle and asked you for a 3rd yet you are too limited to comprehend a simple question.

Do you think thermite is the most likely cause of the ignition in the house?

In truth what was the ignition source in the house example could have been a variety of possible to probable causes. Without an investigation it is impossible to prove anything

Correct, it could be a multitude of things, now you are getting somewhere.

What do you think is the most likely third leg of the triangle in this situation?

One last thing. Why the dishonest stealing of Hoffmans work? Did you think we were too stupid not to see your deception?

funk de fino

4th January 2008, 03:41 PM

regarding progressive collapse of buildings and when it was "invented"

Even before the September 11 attacks, an American government working party stated that "Progressive structural collapse is a primary, if not the leading, cause of injury and death in building failures, regardless of the source of loading...For this reason, predicting and designing to prevent progressive collapse of a building under a specified attack scenario is (and should be) a primary objective..." The same report noted that "...guidance on building collapse and building code requirements would be valuable. The phenomenon of progressive collapse is not well understood, despite the widespread recognition that most building failures include building collapse.

Source - http://gow.epsrc.ac.uk/ViewGrant.aspx?GrantRef=EP/F002599/1

thewholesoul

4th January 2008, 04:38 PM

so lets start off with what YOU said post #970 #1015

doesn’t the fact that no explosion can be seen or heard on any of the videos...mean nothing to you

Not a single explosion is heard
I have no idea if ANY explosions were heard at all

Now i thought that when Belz made a non-factual statements such as the ones above he would retract them – i was wrong.

The reason we all know that explosions were heard that day are twofold:
1)there is an abundance of eyewtiness testimony we can read
2)there is several videos and media clips that we can hear explosions for ourselves and hear reporters reporting about explosions

the testimony can be found in gravvy’s extensive and well researched paper “william rodriguez: escape artist”

and below are the video links you can hear explosions for yourself
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=rwhU15UY3Fc
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=HBaqG4xtyl0
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=2mtLpWYQ7Wk
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw

now below i will just skip through Belz’s failure to withdraw a factually incorrect statement and his continued resistance in doing so.

Well, that's the crux of your problem, isn't it ? How do you distinguish an explosion from any other, loud, sudden noise ?

My problem is your inability to withdraw a factually incorrect statement. In relation to the eyewitness testimony i do not have to distinguih between a loud noise and an explosion – because the people who experienced the event do that for me as they described the events as explosions.

In relation to the video links because the eyewitnesses described hearing explosions that day – i assume – that the loud noises i hear on the video links of that day are the explosions that the eyewitnesses are talking about.

People claim to have heard explosions. Did they ? Did they hear a very loud noise and they think it was an explosion ? Did they hear someone say there was an explosion and are retrofitting their memories ? I don't know. That's why I can't say that any explosions were heard. Please learn to read.

Maybe you should read the testimony in gravy’s well researched paper “william rodriguez: the escape artist”. There you will find plenty of testimony. In that TESTIMONY are people who claimed to have heard explosions.

Now earlier Belz makes a distinction. When I said
it is a FACT that explosions were heard by witnesses we know this by reading their testimony
He replied No, what's a FACT is that they CLAIM to have heard explosions.
Being sarcastic i tried to present Belz’s reasoning in relation to witnesses who saw the planes hitting the towers. I said
it is a fact that planes were seen hitting the towers by witnesses and we know this by reading their testimony or by watching the event on tv, but according to you

No, whats a FACT is that they CLAIM to have seen planes hitting the towers as if to say it is NOT A FACT that the planes hit the buildings!!!
Belz replied
Precisely. The people who saw planes hitting the towers CLAIM that they saw planes hit the towers. Of course, we have an insurmountable mountain of evidence showing that those same planes DID hit the towers. Case closed.

What Belz obviously fails to recognise is that testimony is a form of evidence, that the official theory does not deny that explosions were heard and that his distinction between “claiming” that you “experience” an event is pointless if that person is telling the truth. I tried to explain this to him

Your simply wrong my friend – the FACT was the EVENT that they were describing through their TESTIMONY which is also a FACT.
Belz replied Then you must believe in UFOs, fairies and multiple omnipotent gods.
.....speechless at this juncture

It is a fact that explosions were heard. It is also a fact that they claimed to have heard explosions.
I don't play games, Soul. If you can't understand English, logic and evidence, that isn't my problem[QUOTE=Belz...;3302870]
I continue to explain why he is wrong
[QUOTE] So if they are not lying that they heard an explosion then they DID HEAR AN EXPLOSION
False dichotomy. I explained other possibilities above.
Why is it a false dichotomy? What are you talking about my friend? Do the other possibilites such as a loud noise, or bang suddenly remove the fact the people claimed to have heard explosions. Does other possibilities remove the fact that you said on numerous occassions that no explosions-were-heard???

I continue to explain why he is wrong
that is WHY, dont you think, THEY WOULD CLAIM TO HAVE HEARD AN EXPLOSION. So if they are not lying that they heard and claimed to have heard an explosion you should consider withdrawing the statements below
Non sequitur.

Why is it non-sequiter? What are you talking about my friend?

He the quotes me saying
Because you admit they are not lying that means the experience of the explosion DID HAPPEN.
He then replies Bolding mine.

Yes. You got THAT right.
So what part did i get right then? The part that they were telling the truth that they experienced an explosion which means that they did actually “hear an explosion” – correct????

Before closing let us recall his statements earlier that he refues to withdraw. i bold the relevant portions
doesn’t the fact that no explosion can be seen or heard on any of the videos”...mean nothing to you
Not a single explosion is heard
I have no idea if ANY explosions were heard at all

Look belz if you dont want to withdraw a clearly, obviously, patantly, plainly non factual statement – thats perfectly fine with me. But this will be the last time i could be arsed to return a post in relation to this non-sensical-no-explosions-heard hypothesis.

p.s. when your wrong and dont admit it, that looks bad. But when your wrong and continue to insult me for trying to explain to you why you are wrong, well thats just...

Mobyseven

4th January 2008, 04:43 PM

thewholesoul

4th January 2008, 04:46 PM

regarding progressive collapse of buildings and when it was "invented"

i chose my words specifically and purposefully.

i said progressive-global-collapse. why? becasue progressive collapse was documeted before, as was global collapse. but progressive global collapse to my knowledge is a new term not before used. i will look into a bit more.

however, and this point is more important. the burden of proof is not just for proponents "a new theory" it also covers - (bold) "claims". those who claim that the world is round must prove it. those who make scientific claims - must prove their claims.

in order to refute the argumnet that the burden of proof does not also apply to defenders of the official hypothesis you will have to explain why the claim - total collapse is inevitable post initial collpase - is (a) not a claim or (b) it has already been proven by experiment or computer modelling.

i await your response

thewholesoul

4th January 2008, 04:55 PM

thewholesoul:

Prior to 9/11, how many skyscrapers had been hit by large fuel laden commercial aeroplanes? How many remained standing? Prior to 9/11, how many buildings had had a 110 floor skyscraper collapse on top of them? How many remained standing?

let me be clear the "large fuel laden commercial aeroplanes" is responsible up to and not beyond the point of initial collapse. it is not presented as the reason why we observed total collapse according to the official story.

"Prior to 9/11, how many buildings had had a 110 floor skyscraper collapse on top of them"

partially collapse on top of them. and if you are refering to tower 7 then the collapse mechanism has still not been presented by NIST so with respect i doubt you know what was the causal mechanism was behind the total collapse of that building.

i am not sure how many remained standing. but if memory serves correctly tower 7 was the only tower in wtc to have collapsed "totally" from the onset of the twin tower destruction or demolition. eventhough other buildings suffered more damage. kinda starnge, to me at least

WildCat

4th January 2008, 05:04 PM

let me be clear
Ah, there you are! I've created a thread just for you to present an alternative hypothesis of what happened on 9/11. Just go here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=102615

A W Smith

4th January 2008, 05:56 PM

hahahahha - it that right?

lets see that quote again

ok i understand you did not bother to read the whole post# 1047 but instead opted for a liitle dig - and a weak one at that. But let us examine the above quote in relation to the official hypothesis.

new theory: tell me. when was the progressive global collapse theory first invented? pre or post 911? the fact that previous to 911 no steel framed skyscrappers exhibted a progressive global collapse - this "new theory" was aptly invented. was it ever proven? - no.

claim: once intial collapse occured total collapse was inevitable. was this claim - some would say bold claim - ever proven? no

so, like i said and the quote that you used above says the burdern of proof means the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. Therefore the burden of proof rests on defenders of the official hypothesis AND advocates of alternative hypothesis. if the bold claim - once intial collapse occured total collapse was inevitable – has been proven then who proved it and did they use the scientific method? It wasnt....

moreover, you kindly made the predictable and unacceptable “double-standard” which i discussed in my post#1047 which basically asserts that advocates of controlled demolition must prove how the towers could survive the initial collapse but advocates of the official hypothesis do not have to prove how the towers could not survive the initial collapse. It seems to me in both our interests if we could prove this bold claim one way or another. Those who resist or object to this claim ever being proven cannot be said to respect the scientific method.

So next time you want to make a little dig – and least put your back into it.
http://www.djc.com/news/co/11155170.html
In December 1985, a catastrophic accident occurred in Los Angeles during construction of a 21-story steel-frame building. Eighty tons of structural steel sections were stockpiled on one bay on the fifth floor, loading the bay to twice its designed capacity. Three beams failed suddenly at their temporary connections, precipitating a progressive collapse of 10 bays all the way to the ground floor. Three construction workers were killed in the accident

thewholesoul

4th January 2008, 07:07 PM

Actually, let's not say that. Let's not use a false dilemma fallacy. Let's say you take some time to learn about critical thinking, come back and try again.

false dillema eh.

two hypotheses. 1. contolled demolition 2. fire and gravity

if controlled demolition therefore false flag therefore governemnt lied

if fire + gravity therefore terrorist attack therefore givernment not lying

where is this false dilemma your talking about?

DGM

4th January 2008, 07:16 PM

Totovader

4th January 2008, 07:19 PM

Technically controlled demolition does not necessarily mean the government lied. It could have been done by terrorists.

The subsequent cover-up by all levels of government, however, would be the lie.

Why the government would lie about something like that- as in, what purpose would it serve- is beyond me, though... and TWS can't explain it.

DGM

4th January 2008, 07:27 PM

The subsequent cover-up by all levels of government, however, would be the lie.

Why the government would lie about something like that- as in, what purpose would it serve- is beyond me, though... and TWS can't explain it.
If it was done well enough (hypothetical speaking) and not discovered. What's to cover up?

Wouldn't that piss the "truthers" off. A CD that the government had nothing to do with.

Totovader

4th January 2008, 07:36 PM

If it was done well enough (hypothetical speaking) and not discovered. What's to cover up?

Wouldn't that piss the "truthers" off. A CD that the government had nothing to do with.

I suppose it's possible- but I would think it's highly unlikely to be done and leave no noticeable trace. Early news reports in the confusion speculated as to an "inside job" (misquoted throughout LC:FC) meaning one of the workers may have helped... As to how this could be done without leaving any trace- or being successful... I just can't comprehend it.

Regardless- any CD would be the governments doing, whether it was or not. Conspiracists blame the government for things without evidence as it is now, that probably wouldn't change.

DavidJames

4th January 2008, 07:38 PM

false dillema eh.

two hypotheses. 1. contolled demolition 2. fire and gravity

if controlled demolition therefore false flag therefore governemnt lied

if fire + gravity therefore terrorist attack therefore givernment not lying

where is this false dilemma your talking about?In the future, let me suggest you actually read the entire post you replying to before you reply. That way you won't look silly.

Here is the quote I said was a false dilemma, I've highlighted the key pieces.
let us just say that there are two kinds of folk. those that believe that the government tells the truth and those that do not. those that believe governemnts do not perform false flag operations and those that do. I'm not sure what your reply was in reference to.

So, to review. You need to read for comprehension before you reply. I think if you are able master that technique, you may find your way out of the mess you're in.

Good luck.

Edit to help a little. The false dilemma is stating that people must either believe the government or not believe. It's quite possible for people to believe some things but not others.

thewholesoul

4th January 2008, 07:49 PM

Technically controlled demolition does not necessarily mean the government lied. It could have been done by terrorists.

your right.

there is another angle of course. there was no CD and no terrorists either. but the government attacked the buildings with the planes.

CD - False flag - govt lies
no CD - false flag - govt lies

CD - terrorist attack - govt true
no CD - terrorist attack - govt true

thewholesoul

4th January 2008, 07:58 PM

The false dilemma is stating that people must either believe the government or not believe. It's quite possible for people to believe some things but not others.

point taken.

but i think on this issue and the topic of the thread we are discussing whether there were explosives in the buildings or not. in other words whether the government is lying or not. so there is and must be an either/or dichotomy in this debate.

if there were explosives that means (a) govt did it (b) or terrorists did it

if there were no explosives in the building that means (a) govt flew the planes (b) or terrorists flew the planes (c) or govt knew terrorists would fly the planes and nothing to prevent it

if the govt planted explosives or flew the planes or knew the terrorists would fly the planes into towers it is an inside job or false flag operation and the government lied

if the terrorists planted explosives or flew the planes into towers it was not an inside job or a false flag operation and the governemnt did not lie.

it seems to be the governemnt is lying or not.

funk de fino

5th January 2008, 05:39 AM

i chose my words specifically and purposefully.

i said progressive-global-collapse. why? becasue progressive collapse was documeted before, as was global collapse. but progressive global collapse to my knowledge is a new term not before used. i will look into a bit more.

however, and this point is more important. the burden of proof is not just for proponents "a new theory" it also covers - (bold) "claims". those who claim that the world is round must prove it. those who make scientific claims - must prove their claims.

in order to refute the argumnet that the burden of proof does not also apply to defenders of the official hypothesis you will have to explain why the claim - total collapse is inevitable post initial collpase - is (a) not a claim or (b) it has already been proven by experiment or computer modelling.

i await your response

maths, physics, gravity, calculations, momentum, force, observation

if you want to try to disprove any of these you are more than welcome

BTW your video links from an earlier post do not show explosions, you've been fooled by liars and morons

DGM

5th January 2008, 06:01 AM

your right.

there is another angle of course. there was no CD and no terrorists either. but the government attacked the buildings with the planes.

Lets take a look:

CD - False flag - govt lies

Evidence other than speculation? None.
no CD - false flag - govt lies

Evidence other than speculation? None

CD - terrorist attack - govt true

Evidence other than speculation? Besides the fact that it's technical unfeasible to hide such a thing. None.

no CD - terrorist attack - govt true

Evidence other than speculation? Basically all available evidence points in this direction. Unless you have some deep seeded reason to distrust people in general there's no reason to doubt this evidence. We're not just talking about the government(which consists of people) we're talking about a cover up that would need to include hundreds if not thousands of regular people. This is something I find very difficult to believe. Of course I don't watch a lot of Hollywood movies either.

thewholesoul

5th January 2008, 09:33 AM

http://www.djc.com/news/co/11155170.html

thanks for the article.

to be honest it always feels like a punch to the gut when you read of a progressive collapse of previous buildings prior to 911.

but i will give my pennies worth of critical analysis.

- the article was titled Beware of vulnerabilities during construction so immediately this drew my attention. all of these buildings mentioned, and specifically the one you mentioned, were not finished but still under construction.

so let us put the quote in its context

Loads applied to structural members during construction quite often exceed the design service loads that will act on the completed building.

basically this is telling us that a "completed building" can withstand loads a building "under construction" cannot.

Negligent stockpiling of heavy materials, for example, is a common source of catastrophic structural failures.

now this is exactly what happened in the dec 1985 disaster - negligent stockpilng of 80 tons - now if they are that incompetent in terms of overloading an uncompleted building. there is good reason to assume that other areas of their work exhibited incompetence - particularly in the area of structural integrity (connections etc)

now lets turn to the quote from AZ smith

In December 1985, a catastrophic accident occurred in Los Angeles during construction of a 21-story steel-frame building. Eighty tons of structural steel sections were stockpiled on one bay on the fifth floor, loading the bay to twice its designed capacity. Three beams failed suddenly at their temporary connections, precipitating a progressive collapse of 10 bays all the way to the ground floor.

first of all - unfortunately the article never provides a photo of this progressive collapse, we dont know if it looked anything at all like what we observed on 911.

second - it was meant to be a 21 story building. it was overloaded on one bay the 5th floor then beams i assume beneath the 5th floor suddenly failed at their temporary connections then we get progressive collapse of 10 bays to the ground floor.

thrid - so what floor were the 10 bays that progressively collapsed? it sounds to me that the structure was only 5 floors high - pretty small skyscraper.

fourth - and how many bays were on each floor? i am assuming 10 but if it were more than 10 then that would not support AZ smiths case. even if it was 10 there is no photos or evidence that the outer columns had been constructed which would have aided resisting the collapse.

fifth - was the concrete pulverized? did it progressively fall symetrically or asymetrically? did it have molten metal underneath the collapsed rubble?

sixth - the main point however that AZ Smith wants to make is the overloading. this point would be a lot stronger if (a) the load was not placed on temporary connections (b) and given their negligence in this regard the level of professionalism and workmanship must be brought into question concerning the integrity of every aspect of the entire structure.

so in conclusion
- given that this was not a skyscraper but a 5 story building still under construction the comparison is weak.
- given the negligence that caused the accident it is reasonable to assume that the entire structure was poorly constructed
- the collapse ensued from three steel beams failing at their temproary connections is another reason why the comparison is weak
- given the lack of photo evidence we have no idea if it shared any of the many features that we observed at 911.

so i see no reason to retract the claim that on 911 was the first time ever in the history of steel framed skcscrapers that we witnessed a progressive and global collapse of three steel framed skyscrapers due to fire and gravity.

WildCat

5th January 2008, 09:38 AM

blah blah blah
Still have the thread up for you to explain your "alternative hypothesis" thewholesoul: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=102615

Don't be shy kiddo, just post it! You didn't lie when you said you had one, did you?

funk de fino

5th January 2008, 10:04 AM

so i see no reason to retract the claim that on 911 was the first time ever in the history of steel framed skcscrapers that we witnessed a progressive and global collapse of three steel framed skyscrapers due to fire and gravity.

Everybody knows that this did indeed happen on that day as you describe. The fact it was the first time ever is irrelevant.

Now show us where you made this exact claim earlier.

You claimed that progressive global collpase was basically invented to fit a theory for 911

new theory: tell me. when was the progressive global collapse theory first invented? pre or post 911? the fact that previous to 911 no steel framed skyscrappers exhibted a progressive global collapse - this "new theory" was aptly invented. was it ever proven? - no.

Slightly different from your claim above eh?

You have still ignored my question as to why you stole Hoffmans nonsense

thewholesoul

5th January 2008, 10:12 AM

Thanks for making my point clearer.

well please allow me to opaque your new found clarity.

the quote from wikipedia concerning the burden of proof states that those presenting a "new theory or stating a claim" have the responsibility to prove that new theory or claim.

no.1 those stating a new theory have the burden of proof

contolled demolition of a steel framed building skyscraper is not a new theory.

progressive and total collapse of a steel framed skyscraper is a new phenomena - or new theory.

http://911review.com/coverup/fantasy/progressive.html
Progressive collapse describes a collapse in which an initiating event leads to a disproportionate collapse. This phenomenon is rare, especially in steel-framed buildings. The phenomenon of total progressive collapse is even more rare. In fact, there appears to be no example of total progressive collapse of a steel-framed building outside of the alleged examples of the Twin Towers and Building 7

in the link below the author mentions briefly the difference between a global and a progressive collapse.
http://www.nibs.org/MMC/ProgCollapse%20presentations/HallSohn%20Paper.pdf

on 911 we observed the first ever combination of a progressive and total collapse of three steel framed skyscrapers. that is why i would consider it a new theory. that is why you will not see the combination of the terms progressive and total (or global) used when describing the collapse of a steel framed skyscraper prior to 911 - except perhaps in a demolition paper.

no.2 - those stating a claim have the burden of proof

supporters of CD are stating a claim that total collapse is not inevitable post initial collapse. (they even dispute that initial collapse could have occured.)

supporters of official hypothesis claim that total collapse is inevitable post initial collapse.

we have two sides claiming opposite outcomes.
we have two sides with calculations predicting opposite outcomes.

the best way and perhaps the only to prove who is right and who is wrong is by either testing the claims through experiment or by demonstrating the event via computer models. so by following the scientific method and honouring the burden of proof we can end this dispute.

so whose claim should we prove first?

- given that the official hypothesis is the only hypothesis being official investigated i think they should prove their hypothesis.

- if they did prove their hypothesis it would remove alternative hypothesis at least concerning how the buildings fell. for example imagine you have a murder case and two suspects. once you prove john did it then you automatically prove harry did not do it.

- their claims overlap - CD supporters claim total collaspe will not happen post initial collapse. offical supporters claim total collapse will happen post initial collapse. obviously then, the key area to prove either through experimentation or computer model is the total collapse post initial collapse.

to conclude. i agree that supporter of CD hypothesis have the burden of proof. but also beleive that supporter of official hypothesis have the burden of proof because (a) progressive and total collapse is a new theory (b) they are stating a claim. both these criteria as stated in the quote from wikipedia determine where the burden of proof lies.

as for "bold" claim. well given that a steel framed skyscraper in the history of steel framed skyscrapers never - not once - exhibted a progressive and total collapse from fire and gravity, i would say that supporters of teh official hypothesis are making a bold claim.

WildCat

5th January 2008, 10:20 AM

thewholesoul

5th January 2008, 10:25 AM

It's not ASSUMED to be true. When such a significant mass falls, it just doesn't stop.

allow me to rephrase - it IS ASSUMED to be true because when such a significant mass falls, it IS ASSUMED that it just doesnt stop.

But hey! Before you go and build yourself a full-scale Trade Center, why don't you get some physics class and calculate it yourself ?

hey before you go assuming something is true why dont you prove that assumption with physics through experimentation and/or computer modelling?

Show them.

go to journalof911scholars

Source ?

i heard it somewhere before that on paper bumble bees supposedly cant fly. then i heard it again on a hard fire debate between gravvy and a 911 scholar. the moderator said that it was shown aerodynamically that bumble bees cant fly. so then assuming that the aerodynamics people used calculations to reach their conclusion - i came up wit that statement you asked me to source.

Not only that, but it also wasn't the goal of their report.

i discussed that before post#1047

if i am arguing that the total collapse was not proven and you say that it was not part of the scope of their investigation - that hardly counts as a rebuttal or refutation to my argument.

And also because they didn't care much: they also know that once the collapse initiated, nothing could stop it.

so now your know how they "feel".

to rephrase: they also ASSUME that once the collapse initiated that nothing could stop it.

thewholesoul

5th January 2008, 10:30 AM

thewholesoul, I take it your absence from the other thread is because you lied when you claim there are alternative theories for what happened on 9/11, and therefore the accepted theory is the only show in town?

give me a break

i find it hard enough to keep up responding to most in this room let alone enter a new thread for your pleasure.

i never requested that you open a new thread in my honour. but thanks but no thanks.

now i am liar because i didnt enter the thread you created for me without my consent.

heres a clue to my alternative theory - it is not the official theory. if the offical theory is proven then i will believe it because i will have no rational reason to doubt it.

hey quote this - my alternative theory is that bugs bunny got drunk on a bottle of vodka and carrot juice and decided to go all terrorist. - your welcome to quote that - stick in that new thread - and then criticize and insult me to your hearts content.

A W Smith

5th January 2008, 10:32 AM

now this is exactly what happened in the dec 1985 disaster - negligent stockpilng of 80 tons - now if they are that incompetent in terms of overloading an uncompleted building. there is good reason to assume that other areas of their work exhibited incompetence - particularly in the area of structural integrity (connections etc)

Might want to check how much the aircraft weighed that day. Take your 80 tons above and double that for each plane. And how fast was that steel stockpile traveling? A building under construction is fully bolted up on the story below before moving up. they dont progress above until that task on the existing story is completed.

thewholesoul

5th January 2008, 10:50 AM

Everybody knows that this did indeed happen on that day as you describe. The fact it was the first time ever is irrelevant.

the fact it was the first time ever is not irrelevant to me.

can you perhaps explain and elaborate upon why you consider such a fact irrelavant?

i said
[QUOTE]so i see no reason to retract the claim that on 911 was the first time ever in the history of steel framed skcscrapers that we witnessed a progressive and global collapse of three steel framed skyscrapers due to fire and gravity.
funk said
Now show us where you made this exact claim earlier.

i said "progressive global collapse" earlier. not progressive and global collapse. you got me the sentences are not "exactly" the same the first sentence does not include "and".

You claimed that progressive global collpase was basically invented to fit a theory for 911

well if you admit the fact that progressive and lets not forget the "and" global collapse occured for the first time ever in 911 due to fire and gravity, then that would mean that it was also the first time ever that the terms progressive collapse and global collapse were used in combination with one another. and when something is used or created for the first time - it is possible - to refer to this new linguistic, semantical or verbal combination as an invention.

Slightly different from your claim above eh?

not only slightly different but an irrelevant difference. come on i posted some arguments with a bit more substance than to be not picking on "and".

q - do you accept that total collapse has been proven by the scientific method?

thewholesoul challenge still unanswered: if you answered yes to the above question then would you still believe that the official hypothesis is true if indeed it were finally tested through experimentation and computer modelling - but they were unable to prove it?

[QUOTE=funk de fino;3305709]You have still ignored my question as to why you stole Hoffmans nonsense

i apologise for delay in response to this issue i was trying to think when i quoted hoffman. if i did i was clearly wrong to do so without paying tribute to the guy. and i have no problem if you reported me to the moderator for 10 lashes of a whip!! (just joking)

thewholesoul

5th January 2008, 11:19 AM

It must've been invented pretty much at the same time we started to build stuff. That was a long time ago.

it is a fact that a progressive and global collapse occured to three steel framed skyscrapers on sept11th due to fire and gravity. that is a fact.

it is also a fact that this phenomena never happen to a steel framed skyscraper before 911 due to fire and gravity.

now the term "progressive collapse" and "global collaspe" may well have been in use long before 911.

but we know for a fact that they were never used in combination with one another before 911 in relation to steel framed skyscrapers.

so yes the term progressive global collapse was invented - or to use less loaded language - it was used for the first time.

Oh, so now it's steel-framed skyscrapers. So, according to you, concrete-core skyscrapers can collapse, bridges can collapse, houses can collapse, and all other forms can, and have, collapsed, but not steel towers because we build them well enough for them not to have collapsed before 9/11 ??

yes the buildings that collapsed on 911 were three steel framed skyscrapers.

yes of course any structure can collapse. it is the kind of collapse that is the issue. lets here it again shall we

no steel framed skyscraper in the history of steel framed skyscrapers exhibted a progressive and global collapse due to fire and gravity.

Yes. That YOU don't accept the conclusion doesn't make it false. Again, with the burden of proof..

why dont i accept the conclusion Belz - why?

because their assumption has not yet been proven by experiment or demonstrated though computer model.

but i agree with you - just because i disagree with it does not make it false. but by the same token just because you and otehrs agree with it doesnt make it true. we went over this point before if i remember correctly?

i have been over the burden of proof aswell?
- progressive and global collapse is a new phenomena and requires a new theory.
- defenders of the official hypothesis make a (bold) claim that total collapse was inevitable post initial collaspe.
- the burden of proof rests on those who suggest a new theory and/or state a claim. that is why the burden of proof Belz rests of supporters of the official hypothesis - and also - on advocates of CD hypothesis because they too state a (bold) claim.
- i covered the burden of proof double standard in post #1047 that you continue to apply?

Galileo was right, but he had to prove it.

exactly. hence when you and others who support the official hypothesis will be right when someone proves it.

just some quick questions Belz and i can move onto to evidence in support of the CD hypothesis.

q - do you accept that the burden of proof also rests on the official hypothesis?

q - do you accept that to date the total collapse has not been proven through the scientifc method

thewholesoul challenge - still unanwsered: if you acceot the two premises above what would you still beleive that the official hypothesis is true if they were unable to prove it through experimentation and/or computer modelling?

thewholesoul

5th January 2008, 11:50 AM

maths, physics, gravity, calculations, momentum, force, observation

untested mathemathics and calculations

if you want to try to disprove any of these you are more than welcome

i dont want to disprove any of these claims - the burden of proof - is on those who make these calculations and theorums to prove their truth either through experimentation or computer modelling.

BTW your video links from an earlier post do not show explosions, you've been fooled by liars and morons

you right one of them was a complete fabrication. whoever made it plugged in the sound of explosions made obvious when the original is played alongside. i retracted that video.

the others however to my knowledge are genuine. and they do show explosions or very loud booms.

if you believe that the testimony of eyewitnesses is true - that they heard explosions that day in the twin towers - then it is you who are foolish when you are presented with videos where you can hear explosions for yourself.

it is not too much of an assumption to say that the explosions in the videos are the same phenomena that eyewitness describe in their testimony.

besides you completely avoided my question - to repeat

do you think that - total collapse is inevitable post initial collapse - is a claim?

funk de fino

5th January 2008, 12:54 PM

the fact it was the first time ever is not irrelevant to me.

Well it should be or you display an illogical thought process and a non scientific method

can you perhaps explain and elaborate upon why you consider such a fact irrelavant?

Argument by history is not scientific

not only slightly different but an irrelevant difference. come on i posted some arguments with a bit more substance than to be not picking on "and".

I snipped out the trest of your junk. The above is you, yet again, completely missing the point

The difference was the addition of three skyscrapers on the same day due to fire and gravity to your claim. It adds to the argument by history junk from earlier

Show me where you made that exact claim which you said you would not retract? It does not mention three skyscrapers on the same day. This is a ery important and distinct change from earlier your claims.

q - do you accept that total collapse has been proven by the scientific method?

It has been shown using all available data, observations, calculations, physical laws and in peer reviewed papers that total collapse was inevitable. If you disagree you must refute the calculations and papers. It is your burden to refute these not ours to prove what is already proven.

Does every theory get tested with physical and scale tests?

thewholesoul challenge still unanswered: if you answered yes to the above question then would you still believe that the official hypothesis is true if indeed it were finally tested through experimentation and computer modelling - but they were unable to prove it?

I can break the F1 lap record at Monaco on a PC game. I cannot do it in real life. What does this prove?

i apologise for delay in response to this issue i was trying to think when i quoted hoffman. if i did i was clearly wrong to do so without paying tribute to the guy. and i have no problem if you reported me to the moderator for 10 lashes of a whip!! (just joking)

I would not pay tribute to him the paper you quoted is junk

Please explain to me the difference between "progressive collapse" and "global collapse"

funk de fino

5th January 2008, 01:01 PM

untested mathemathics and calculations

Peer reviewed

i dont want to disprove any of these claims - the burden of proof - is on those who make these calculations and theorums to prove their truth either through experimentation or computer modelling.

Burden of proof is on you pal. They have published their papers for all to refute. Calculations are either wrong or right. Prove they are wrong

you right one of them was a complete fabrication. whoever made it plugged in the sound of explosions made obvious when the original is played alongside. i retracted that video.

the others however to my knowledge are genuine. and they do show explosions or very loud booms.

if you believe that the testimony of eyewitnesses is true - that they heard explosions that day in the twin towers - then it is you who are foolish when you are presented with videos where you can hear explosions for yourself.

it is not too much of an assumption to say that the explosions in the videos are the same phenomena that eyewitness describe in their testimony.

None of those videos show a demolition explosion. I am not foolish but you have been fooled.

As for the far distance video. Think about the speed of sound sparky. Oh and then think about the sound you get from wind on mic's. Posting youtube videos is the scientific method now is it? Contradict yourself much?

thewholesoul

5th January 2008, 01:52 PM

there is no evidence of thermite at WTC, dont lie, leave steven jones out of it, he is a liar

look you can call me a liar if that pleases you, i will be presenting an argument for the use and evidence of thermite at wtc. Of course if there is evidence of thermite that would support all testimony who claimed to have heard explosions. Your welcome to debate – but calling me a lar and steven jones a liar only demonstrates how receptive or rather unreceptive you are going to be to my argumnets.

Machines? electricity? sparks? They need not be in the elevator shaft

Look you teach this stuff. But you dont have to be a teacher to posses common sense. There are two options because the machines werent inside the elevator shaft that means that (A) the descending jet fuel entered the machine room and became ignited from the sparks etc, or (B) the sparks entered the elevator room being ejected from the machines.

Either way, you will agree, we have to have contact between the sparks and the jet fuel. Of the two possibilities the former seems more plausible

Astonishing display of ignorance. If an elevator shaft is airtight the lift could not move up and down. The occupants would have no air to breathe. The fuel can easily slip past the lift and escape as a vapour at the bottom.

Please tell me you understand that elevator shafts are not hermetically sealed

I was only parrating off what i heard on their documentary.

If however the elevator shaft is airtight then that does not mean that the elevators could not move up and down. Cables were responsible for pulling the elevator up and down.

The occupants having nothing to breathe is a much stronger argumnet. Which completely refutes the notion that the elevator shafts were airtight.
Maybe you should have thought about your lack of knowledge on this subject before you started railing on here about ignition sources, fuel vapours etc

i have already achieved my goal despite my lack of knowledge in the subject area.

we cannot say for definite what caused the ignition but we have a huge list of very plausible sources
So when defenders of the official hypothesis claim that the jet fuel was ignited by x, y, or z – they are really only speculating. I think it is important that people in this room recognise the difference between speculation and known proven facts.

Moreover, because we know that a thermite reaction or incendary devices can cause fuel to ignite we can not rule this possibility out. Not one person in this room argued against the fact that thermite reaction or incendary devices can serve as an ignition source for jet fuel.

Implausible due to lack of evidence. Not due to the fact they cannot be used.

We will determine how implausible it is when we discuss the evidence for thermite.

Again this is a fantasy scenario and there is no need. Switches can and do cause ignition. The systems I work with have special safeguards in place for use in explosive atmospheres. The ones in the Towers did not

Again you provided no sound reason why experimentation could not be carried out.

I agree that switches can and do cause ignition. But the position of those switches relative to descending fuel is relevant. Where they exposed or not? The kind of switches is also relevant – you say the ones in the towers did not have special safeguards – where is your source for that claim? If indeed the light switches were the cause then one would expect that the fuel would have deflagrated all the way down the elevator shaft because light switches i assume would have been positioned all the way the elevator shaft. But this did not happen – which brings into doubt that the light switches were the cause.
Experimentation is not a fantazy – you simply lack imagination. For example, to repeat, NIST tested how a jet liner could remove the fireproofing paint from the steel columns on 8 separate floors. How did they do that? They placed fireproofing in a wooden box and shot it with a shotgun!!!!
So this argument, mentioned previously as well

to test as you wish, you need an exact replica of the towers and everything that happened on that day or you have variables that deflect from what happened that day, it is an impossibility to test it as you wish and say definitively that this is what happened

Should obviously apply to NIST as well. In fact i bet you would suspend all critcial thinking and even claim that there was nothing wrong with their test. So the fact that you do not apply the same standards for experimentation on NIST as you do my humble suggestions simply means that you apply double standards my friend.

Heres is what you did say about the NIST experimentation
I am not judging NIST, you are. They are better at what they do than you or me. Deal with it.

I know you are not judging NIST that is because you are suspending your critical thinking and applying it solely to suggestions i made concerning experimentation. I agree they are better at what they do but i would have one or two objections to their shotgun experiment – dont you??? Why do hold such reverance to authority? are NIST somehow beyond criticism – even judgment – in your mind?

You tell me that i just have to deal with it – i am dealing with it, i am applying critical thinking to their experimentations and their lack of experimentations. The way you deal with NIST is through passivity, by suspending your crtical judgement and applying it soley to me for suggesting that experiments could be performed.

They do not have to find an ignition source there are literally thousands of them all around everyone of us everyday. There were even more in the Towers due to the plane crash.

Ok we are going to have to disagree on that one. In my opinion if i, or a relative or friend of mine was burnt or injured from the explosion in the basement, and if i and many others thought it was a bomb that caused the explosion – i personally would want to know exactly, definitively, what was the cause. And I would want at the very least an investigation into the causes of the explosion in the basement not just speculation backed up by more specualtion which i have established is all we seem to be doing.
In an elevator shaft i think we could reduce or limit the causes down from literally thousands. Falling debris, lighting, and/or incendary devices seem to be the front runners.

Do you believe everything NTSB report about what happened that day? If not why not?

Having been on their website i found nothing. So i tell you what, you tell me what they said an i will tell you whether i agree with it or not.

Source? Reason?
www.911blogger.com/node/13149
you asked if i agreed with everything the NSTB and FAA reported about 911. i thought it would be relevant to establish that fact the FAA do not publicise all their information about 911 which renders it an impossibility to make an informed decision on whether i happen to agree with their information or not.

Again, you have no idea. You do not need scaling to know that an electrical switch will cause the correct explosive atmosphere to ignite.

So if scaling is not an obstacle why did you say this to test as you wish, you need an exact replica of the towers and everything that happened on that day??

Like i said the position and exposure is relevant. The kind of light is relevant. And could be tested. Given that some people swear that the explosion in the basement was a bomb i think it would be nice to settle this issue. Like i said if it was the lighting in the sahft that cuased the jet fuel to ignite then common sense tells us that ignition would have occured long before the jet fuel reach the basement – but this did not happen. You comment below only supports my suspicions

These circuits operate on 4 to 20 mA current and 24 VDC. Do you understand how low this is?

Any single spark from any circuit in the towers will cause the fuel/air vapour to ignite. This is discounting the plane debris. Do you know how filaments in lamps work? Do you know how switches work? Do you know how hot some machinery in the towers can run at? Do you know how high the voltage is of Static Electricity discharge is when you can feel it?

All of your possible ignition sources and the more you provide only make it more incredible that the jet fuel could have reached the basement without igniting and explosing into a fireball beforehand.

911 is no joke

Of course 911 is not a joke – and you know damn well that i never said it was!

Someone in this room, we all know who, openly stated that he is willing to “disrespect” people who lost family members on 911 because he “disagrees” with them. Why dont you apply your moral standards to that person where it belongs. I never said 911 was a joke – and you god damn know that sir!

Do you think thermite is the most likely cause of the ignition in the house?

This is a ridiculous and pointless question.

In order to determine what was the cause of the jet fuel in the basement of the wtc we dont say well in a house with no previous histroy of terrorist attacks where gas explosions and normally the result of electrical ignition sources means that the explosion in the basement was also most likely caused by the same ignition source.

to answer the question however the ignition source in the house example could have been a variety of possible to probable causes - including thermite reaction if it was an arson attack. Without an investigation it is impossible to prove anything

Correct, it could be a multitude of things, now you are getting somewhere.

What do you think is the most likely third leg of the triangle in this situation?

It is a hypothetical question. But i would say in the majority of gas explosions in a house an electrical source would be the culprit for ignition.

But if your saying categorically that the explosion in the basement of wtc was caused by lighting – then why do you continue to resist any suggestion of experimentation that would prove your assumption true?? It makes no sense at all.

WildCat

5th January 2008, 02:05 PM

i have already achieved my goal despite my lack of knowledge in the subject area.
Excellent, now you can post your "alternative theory" in the thread I created to expose your lie just for you. Remember when you claimed:
there are two main hypothesis.
the official hypothesis
alternative hypothesis

You simply just lied, yes? Your claim, back it up. I really want to see the nonsense you'll post that can account for everything seen that day as thoroughly as the 9/11 Commission and the NIST did.

But frankly, we all know you're full of excrement.

You can continue dodging questions and copying and pasting other troofer posts now. :rolleyes:

Belz...

5th January 2008, 02:57 PM

Please, quote me, when did i argue that because some people disagree with the official hypothesis that it should be proven???

What part of "implied" did you not understand in my sentence ?

So do you beleive the official hypotehsis is proven?

I believe it is the most rational explanation that takes all data into consideration.

Great – progress has been made. Finally you accept that even when the majority of professionals agree on a particular hypothesis that in itself does not prove that something is true.

I never said otherwise. You just keep misreading my posts, but that's not my problem.

To give a side example – all priests accept the existence of god but they cannot prove god exists.

Priests are not experts. They are believers.

Now instead of withdrawing your false statement – that total collapse was tested – you say you’ll stick with it. Eventhough it is a known fact that it has never been tested?? So why do you continue to stick to a statement that is factual wrong?

Because it is not factually wrong, contra what you think.

So let me get this straight – the reason you refuse to withdraw a factual incorrect statement – total collapse has been tested - is because you dont agree with alternative hypothesis, you know that things fall, and because you repeat the claim that total collapse was inevitable – which was precisely the subject of the statement that needs to be withdrawn. Way to go.

Now that you're done battling your private army of strawmen, let me correct you. The reason why I stand by my statement is that experience teaches us that when things collapse, bad things happen. That's why we build things the way we do.

Obviously, I don't stand by it because of some circular nonsense, and it's not because there are no alternative hypotheses. None of those would be rational.

The only logical way you can maintain your position and statement – the only logical way – is if you can provide just one example or experiment when the total collapse has been tested. merely saying, claiming and assuming that it is inevitable DOES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING FOR YOU.

You mean to say that nothing has ever collapsed ? There are enough examples of building collapses to show what fires can do to a building and what happens when collapse begins. The fact that no skyscraper even close to the size of the WTC collapsed, especially in those conditions, before 9/11 is only an indication that it never happened before, not one that it couldn't.

Because the primary reason (apart from earthquakes, missiles and nuclear bombs) a steel-framed skyscrapper totally collapsed in the history of such buildings was due to controlled demolition.

Why do you choose to exclude earthquakes, missiles (kinda like planes, aren't they ?) and other sources ?

I thought this was a petty good reason or plausible explanation for why we observed three such skyscappers totally collapsing on sept 11th – but i have made a fallacy!!

You made an error, that's for sure, because it's just as reasonable to say that it was explosives than to say that it was an earthquake for the same reason. Both would've registered on seismographs, after all, but that's not what happened.

First error: “some” is a rather cautious expression or remarkable understatement once we consider that every, or the vast majority, of steel framed skyscrappers in the history of steel framed skyscrappers exhibited total collapse resulting from controlled demolition.

Talk about misdirection.

Some As are Bs, alright.

And “none” prior to 911 resulted from fire and gravity.

NONE ? Are you that ignorant ? Sheesh, even TRUTHERS mention the Meridian plaza.

1)prior to 911 NOT ONE A’s (total collapse of skyscrapper) were B’s (were caused by fire and gravity)
2)X (total collapse of wtc on sept 11th) is an A (total collapse of skyscrapper)
3)Therefore X is B (therefore the total collapse of the wtc skyscrapper resulted from something that never happened in the history of steel framed skyscrappers!!!)

That's not much of a syllogism. No wonder you don't understand a thing I'm saying. How you can construct such a monstrosity and take yourself seriously is beyond me. What I'm saying is nothing of the sort, but let me help you:

1.) Some As are Bs
2.) We have ample evidence that this particular A is a B
3.) Therefore is it likely to be a B

By reasoning from experience – on a posteriori grounds – the controlled demolition hypothesis is far stronger than the fire and gravity hypothesis yet it was ignored and never investigated.

What the hell do you mean by "a posteriori" in this context ? And since when is a hypothesis with no supporting evidence in its favour, and with evidence against it, is better than one WITH supporting evidence and no evidence against it ???

We KNOW that fire destroys buildings, because it happens far too regularily. We KNOW that steel is particularily weak in those situations, and we know that crashing large airliners at speeds that exceed their safety limits is NOT a good idea. We also know that, considering the sheer mass of 30+ floors of a building the size of the WTC towers, once collapse begins, the kinetic forces involved are far too great for a single floor to handle, and we KNOW that it would only affect each floor separatly while crashing down. Where's the problem ?

There is no lack of evidence – there is an abundance of evidence

All of which you'll "present at a later date" ?

Belz...

5th January 2008, 03:04 PM

Yes it would be expensive. no i dont have to pay for the official hypothesis to be proven.

You're the one who claims it's impossible, even while all those who work in that field seem to have no problem with it.

The burden of proof rests on defenders of the official hypothesis to prove their hypothesis, the burden of proof rests on defenders of controlled demolition to prove their hypothesis.

Soul, what part of "accepted theory" do you NOT understand ? Again, do I have to prove the Earth is round to every flat-earther I meet ?

“Something we already know is true” – really how did you arrive at this conclusion? Through “experience”!!! so you are claiming that fire and gravity caused the total collapse of wtc and you know this to be true because never – not once – in the history of steel framed skyscrappers was total collapse caused by fire and gravity!!

Soul, you're being ridiculous. A collapse of a WTC is not required as a test of the possibility of a WTC collapsing in that manner. Any other skyscraper will do.

Man if i was a magician i would love to have you in my audience

No, you wouldn't.

I will believe the official hypothesis is true by “experimentation” when their bold claim that total colalpse is inevitable post initial collapse is tested either through experimentation or demonstarted by computer model.

Then you will never believe it. You've carefully placed yourself beyond any possible proof by placing the burden of proof on people who are satisfied with this explanation and who are responsible for applying its conclusions, and you've admitted that you will not fund, partially or otherwise, an investigation in the matter. Have fun in your ivory tower.

First of all the claim that Earth is round has already been proven to be true by experimentation.

How ? A flat-earther could always say that HE did not experiment it, that HE did not see the results of such interpretation, that pictures of a spheroid earth COULD be the results of some unknown photographic principle, and that he won't pay the necessary money to take a boat/plane trip around the world and see it for himself.

Once it was proven it does not have to proven over and over again.

Well, at least you understand that point.

Belz i am arguing for the scientific method.

Fine, you're arguing for something that you do not understand.

You are arguing that it is not necessary, that the scientific method is not applicable to the official hypothesis.

I never said this. You are lying.

Belz...

5th January 2008, 03:17 PM

The reason we all know that explosions were heard that day are twofold:
1)there is an abundance of eyewtiness testimony we can read

It is a fact that people claim to have heard explosions. What they did hear could be completely different, which is why we need corroborating evidence, which we have.

2)there is several videos and media clips that we can hear explosions for ourselves and hear reporters reporting about explosions

And so far you have refused to link to those 'several' videos. Oh, wait. What's this ?

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=rwhU15UY3Fc
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=HBaqG4xtyl0
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=2mtLpWYQ7Wk
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw

It's about freakin' time!

I'll adress them in my next post.

In relation to the eyewitness testimony i do not have to distinguih between a loud noise and an explosion – because the people who experienced the event do that for me as they described the events as explosions.

And that makes them automatically right ? That's downright silly, but I'm getting the impression that that's not what you're really saying. You're just really, really bad at expressing yourself.

What Belz obviously fails to recognise is that testimony is a form of evidence

Indeed, it IS evidence. Where did I say otherwise ?

that the official theory does not deny that explosions were heard and that his distinction between “claiming” that you “experience” an event is pointless if that person is telling the truth. I tried to explain this to him

I'm sure that quite a few explosions were, indeed, heard, but I don't actually know. The reason why I think they were is that a number of things can 'explode' in a fire, and if you want to get pedantic, ANY noise is an explosion. But I don't know if ANY actual explosion was heard aside from the plane crashes.

.....speechless at this juncture

Why ? You seem to think that the fact that someone experiences a UFO means that alien saucers should be considered a valid explanation for their experience EVEN when we have competing and more compelling explanations.

Why is it a false dichotomy?

Because there are other possibilities that you choose to hand-wave.

Do the other possibilites such as a loud noise, or bang suddenly remove the fact the people claimed to have heard explosions.

Oh, so now it's "claimed" ? Suddenly you're saying the exact same thing I'm saying and that you're pissed off at me for saying. That's weird.

Does other possibilities remove the fact that you said on numerous occassions that no explosions-were-heard???

I never said that. You are lying. Again.

Why is it non-sequiter?

You implied that it was a reason for me to retract what I said. It wasn't. Therefore your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises. That is called a non sequitur.

What are you talking about my friend?

I am not your friend. All my friends are smart.

p.s. when your wrong and dont admit it, that looks bad. But when your wrong and continue to insult me for trying to explain to you why you are wrong, well thats just...

...proof that you don't understand a word of what other people are saying.

Norseman

5th January 2008, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by funk de fino
Do you believe everything NTSB report about what happened that day? If not why not?

Having been on their website i found nothing. So i tell you what, you tell me what they said an i will tell you whether i agree with it or not.

www.911blogger.com/node/13149
you asked if i agreed with everything the NSTB and FAA reported about 911. i thought it would be relevant to establish that fact the FAA do not publicise all their information about 911 which renders it an impossibility to make an informed decision on whether i happen to agree with their information or not.

Here is what NTSB has published on the 9/11 attacks:
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/foia_fri.htm

Go down a little bit on the page to the relevant reports.

Belz...

5th January 2008, 03:57 PM

allow me to rephrase - it IS ASSUMED to be true because when such a significant mass falls, it IS ASSUMED that it just doesnt stop.

It's assumed from experience, dummy.

go to journalof911scholars

Well, that sounds like a reasonable, non-biased source!

i heard it somewhere before that on paper bumble bees supposedly cant fly. then i heard it again on a hard fire debate between gravvy and a 911 scholar. the moderator said that it was shown aerodynamically that bumble bees cant fly. so then assuming that the aerodynamics people used calculations to reach their conclusion - i came up wit that statement you asked me to source.

Exactly why you can't trust what you hear.

it is a fact that a progressive and global collapse occured to three steel framed skyscrapers on sept11th due to fire and gravity. that is a fact.

it is also a fact that this phenomena never happen to a steel framed skyscraper before 911 due to fire and gravity.

It never happened to a steel-framed skyscraped designed like the WTC on Manhattan before 9/11. That's hardly evidence for anything.

now the term "progressive collapse" and "global collaspe" may well have been in use long before 911.

but we know for a fact that they were never used in combination with one another before 911 in relation to steel framed skyscrapers.

Aw, come on, Soul. You're getting desperate, here.

- progressive and global collapse is a new phenomena and requires a new theory.

Man, if global collapses were a new phenomena, we wouldn't need building safety codes.

Come on, now. Haven't you even seen a building completely collapse ?

- defenders of the official hypothesis make a (bold) claim that total collapse was inevitable post initial collaspe.

Why is it bold if almost every engineer and demolition expert in the world has no problem with it ?

- the burden of proof rests on those who suggest a new theory and/or state a claim. that is why the burden of proof Belz rests of supporters of the official hypothesis - and also - on advocates of CD hypothesis because they too state a (bold) claim.

No, because it is not a new theory.

q - do you accept that the burden of proof also rests on the official hypothesis?

No, for two reasons:

a.) It is not a hypothesis.
b.) It has already been proven.

q - do you accept that to date the total collapse has not been proven through the scientifc method

No.

thewholesoul challenge - still unanwsered: if you acceot the two premises above what would you still beleive that the official hypothesis is true if they were unable to prove it through experimentation and/or computer modelling?

Since I don't accept your premises, it follows that I don't subscribe to your interpretation.

----

Now, as to the videos.

The first three show footage from the same camera and the same angle. The "explosion" they describe in the first two and the sounds we hear prior to collapse in the third cannot be conclusively identified as explosion sounds. My opinion is that they are far too sudden to represent something that happens that far away. It's most likely wind. You DO know what wind does to mikes, don't you ?

The fourth one is the easiest to deal with. We've seen that very same video WITHOUT the explosion sounds. That means some idiot added the sound later. It speaks volumes about the ability of "truthers" to invent the truth when they even lie to one another.

thewholesoul

5th January 2008, 05:34 PM

[QUOTE=funk de fino;3306153] Well it should be or you display an illogical thought process and a non scientific method[/NOTE]

If your saying that the fact, a fact that you yourself agree with, that in the history of steel frame skyscrapers not once – never – has there been a progressive and global collapse due to fire and gravity except for the three “alleged” times on 911 means nothing and is irrelevant – well i guess we will just have to disagree.
Logically – this historical fact – supports the CD hypothesis over the official hypothesis because prior to 911 (apart from earthquakes, missiles or nukes) the only way a steel framed skyscraper exhibted a progressive and global collapse was by controlled demolition. I covered this in my post #1062

[QUOTE=funk de fino;3306153] Argument by history is not scientific[/NOTE]

I guess i win, hands down, the historical argument.

And by the way history is not irrelevant.

[QUOTE=funk de fino;3306153] I snipped out the trest of your junk. The above is you, yet again, completely missing the point

The difference was the addition of three skyscrapers on the same day due to fire and gravity to your claim. It adds to the argument by history junk from earlier

Show me where you made that exact claim which you said you would not retract? It does not mention three skyscrapers on the same day. This is a very important and distinct change from earlier your claims. [/NOTE]

The reason i do not sometimes fully comprehend what your saying is because i dont know what your talking about -.your above comments being an example.

Big deal – i added three sfs (steel-framed-skyscrapers) to a claim i will not retract – (i am assuming this is the claim you refer to) that in the history of steel frame skyscrapers not once – never – has there been a progressive and global collapse due to fire and gravity – its true isn’t?

q - do you accept that total collapse has been proven by the scientific method?

[QUOTE=funk de fino;3306153] It has been shown using all available data, observations, calculations, physical laws and in peer reviewed papers that total collapse was inevitable. If you disagree you must refute the calculations and papers. It is your burden to refute these not ours to prove what is already proven.[/NOTE]

So your answer to the question is no. That the total collapse has not been proven by the scientific method. Thank you for accepting the truth.

Here is some peer reviewed papers from the observations, calculations, physical laws that say total collapse was not inevitable (among other things). If you disagree you must refute their calculations and papers. It is your burden to refute these.

Gregory H. Urich
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/GUrich/MassAndPeWtc.pdf
Analysis of the Mass and Potencial Energy of World Trade Centre Tower 1

Gordon Ross
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/NISTandDrBazant-SimultaneousFailure-WTCCollapseAnalysis2.pdf
NIST and Dr.Bazant – a simultaneous failure.

Prof. Terry http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/ProfMorroneOnMeltingWTCsteel.pdf
Proof that the Thermal and gravitational energy was Insufficient to melt steel in the Twin Towers and 7 World Trade Centre on 9/11/01

Dr. Frank Legge
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200611/911-Acceleration-Study-Proves-Explosive-Demolition.pdf
9-11 – Acceleration study proves explosives demolition.

Gordon Ross
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_3_RossReply.pdf
Reply to Dr.Greening

Gordon Ross, ME
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf
Momentum Transfer Amalysis of the Collapse of the Upper Storeys of WTC1

Here is the words of another structural engineerWilliam Rice, P.E
http://www.vermontguardian.com/commentary/032007/TwinTowers.shtml
“Even if Newton’s Law is ignored, the prevailing theory would have us believe that each of the Twin Towers inexplicably collapsed upon itself crushing all 287 massive columns on each floor while maintaining a free-fall speed as if the 100,000, or more, tons of supporting structural-steel framework underneath didn’t exist”

[QUOTE=funk de fino;3306153] prove what is already proven.[/NOTE] – you conceded that total collapse was not proven by the sceintific method. Granted you did not say yes, but your failure to say no was taken as a concession. if you wish to clarify the matter simply give a yes or a no answer to the question. If you do not not clarify the issue i will assume that you do acknowledge the fact that total collapse has not been proven by the scientific method.

Now, if it has not been proven by the scientific method, and we all know your a big fan of science since you consider the historical fact mentioned above as irrelevant precisely because it a historical argument not a scientific one, then how can you say that the total collapse was already proven when we both know that there has been no tests, experimentation, and/or computer modelling all of which represent the scientific method?

If your suggesting, which i think you are, that the calculations somehow prove the global collapse was inevitable then what do you say about the peer reviewed calculations i presented that also, by your standards, prove that global collapse was not inevitable. Like i keep saying, the best way and perhaps the only way to prove which calculations are correct and true is by testing, experimentation and/or computer modelling.

[QUOTE=funk de fino;3306153] “Does every theory get tested with physical and scale tests?”.[/NOTE]

I am not sure. But if mankind can devise and think of ways to test something as grand as the big bang theory and something as small as in subatomic particles in quantum theory – i would maintain that it is possible to test the total collapse scientifically.

I understand scale models are not feasible, but i hope and expect that computers will evolve sufficiently that one day a computer model can demonstrate the event on 911.

thewholesoul challenge still unanswered: if you answered yes to the above question then would you still believe that the official hypothesis is true if indeed it were finally tested through experimentation and/or computer modelling - but they were unable to prove it?

You say [QUOTE=funk de fino;3306153] I can break the F1 lap record at Monaco on a PC game. I cannot do it in real life. What does this prove? [/NOTE]
You see, you cannot give a straight answer. Evasion noted.

Norseman

5th January 2008, 05:53 PM

Please use the preview function before you post thewholesoul to check the formatting. Your post is a mess of wrongly formated quotes, not very readable.

thewholesoul

5th January 2008, 06:00 PM

[QUOTE=funk de fino;3306153] Please explain to me the difference between "progressive collapse" and "global collapse"[/NOTE]

On this link you will read structural engineers disagree about the definition of progressive collapse. "progressive collapse is a nebulous term" they say. Any collapse is progressive in that one thing fails, something else fails, and so on."
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/disinfo/collapse/csemag_progcollapse.html

on this link the give a clear definition
http://www.gostructural.com/print.asp?id=236
Progressive collapse is defined as the spread of an initial local failure from element to element, eventually resulting in the collapse of an entire structure or a disproportionately large part of it

on this link they give a definiton of progressive collapse but explain that NIST never clarifies global collapse in relation to total progressive collapse
http://911review.com/coverup/fantasy/progressive.html”

" Progressive collapse describes a collapse in which an initiating event leads to a disproportionate collapse. This phenomenon is rare, especially in steel-framed buildings. The phenomenon of total progressive collapse is even more rare. In fact, there appears to be no example of total progressive collapse of a steel-framed building outside of the alleged examples of the Twin Towers and Building

“Despite the absence of a single example of total progressive collapse of a steel-framed building before or after 9/11/01, the alleged phenomenon is the lynchpin of the official explanation for the collapse of the Twin Towers and Building 7. As if to obscure this fact, NIST's report on the Twin Towers employs a new term for the phenomenon: global collapse, which it uses multiple times without clarifying its relationship to total progressive collapse, although it also uses the term "progressive collapse" 16 times "

personally i believe the difference between a progressive collapse and a global collapse is that the former can be the latter but the latter can never be the former.

thewholesoul

5th January 2008, 06:16 PM

Peer reviewed

Just like the journalfor911truth

Burden of proof is on you pal. They have published their papers for all to refute. Calculations are either wrong or right. Prove they are wrong

You prove the peer reviewed papers of journalsfor911 truth wrong.

Mathematical proofs are not the same thing as experimental proofs. The former being more theoretical.

I have been through the burden of proof argumnet countless times. The burden of proof rests on anybody’s shoulder who is presenting a new theory or stating a claim.
Defenders of the official story are presenting a new theory because progressive global collapse of a steel framed skyscraper is a new phenomena – a fact – i will remind you that you accept. Next is “total collapse was inevitable post inital collapse” a claim?
Of course it is. Therefore teh burden of proof rests on defenders of the official hypothesis AND advocates of CD hypothesis. i discussed this “double standard” in my post #1047.

None of those videos show a demolition explosion. I am not foolish but you have been fooled.

Maybe it does not “show” the explosion. but all the videos sure “sound” like an explosion.

Maybe the video footage was too distant for you. Perhaps you should read the following testimony of people who were right there that day....

Paramedic Daniel Rivera “did – you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear pop pop pop pop pop?...i thought it was that.

Witness Timothy Burke “the building popped, lower than the fire...i was going oh, my god, there is a secondary device because the way the building popped. I thought it was an explosion”

Firefighter Edward Cachia – “it actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. We originally thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives...”

Assistant comissioner Stephan Gregory “i thought that i saw lower level flashes...(at) the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building”

As for the far distance video. Think about the speed of sound sparky. Oh and then think about the sound you get from wind on mic's. Posting youtube videos is the scientific method now is it? Contradict yourself much?

Posting videos is not proving a hypothesis, sparky. Posting videos is evidence which supports a hypothesis, sparky. Evidence and proof are not teh same thing, sparky.

So the explosions heard on video are wind...hahahaha. it could be someone farting??

If people standing next to the buildings heard HUGE explosions – and cameras pointed at the same building on the same day record what sounds liek explosions. Whats the odds eh, that what is heard on the camera is an explosion, sparky?

thewholesoul

5th January 2008, 06:17 PM

Please use the preview function before you post thewholesoul to check the formatting. Your post is a mess of wrongly formated quotes, not very readable.

my mistake i apologise. i hate when that happens.

thewholesoul

5th January 2008, 06:30 PM

Excellent, now you can post your "alternative theory" in the thread I created to expose your lie just for you. Remember when you claimed:

have you really nothing better to do then try and harass me into entering your new thread where i can recieve insults there as well as in here.

You simply just lied, yes? Your claim, back it up. I really want to see the nonsense you'll post that can account for everything seen that day as thoroughly as the 9/11 Commission and the NIST did.:

you know what the word "alternative" means? it can mean "other". now when i said there are two hypothesis
1 -the official hypothesis
2 - alternative hypothesis

there is nothing untrue about that. the CD hypothesis, for example, is an alternative hypothesis in relation to the official hypothesis, is it not? the energy beam hypothesis is an example of yet another alternative hypotheis in relation to the official hypothesis.

But frankly, we all know you're full of excrement.

listen mack, i am never going into your new thread - never. you are an extremely and intentionly rude person.

and if i am full of excrement as you put it, your mouth is like a toilet seat, and we all know where the excrement will go!!

this is the last time i will respond to you. enjoy

beachnut

5th January 2008, 07:01 PM

the CD hypothesis, for example, is an alternative hypothesis in relation to the official hypothesis, is it not? the energy beam hypothesis is an example of yet another alternative hypotheis in relation to the official hypothesis.

listen mack, i am never going into your new thread - never. you are an extremely and intentionly rude person.

and if i am full of excrement as you put it, your mouth is like a toilet seat, and we all know where the excrement will go!!

this is the last time i will respond to you. enjoy
You have no evidence to back up any of your ideas on 9/11.
You have no evidence to back up the CD hypothesis; it is a fantasy of yours. It is not a hypothesis it is a fantasy!
You have no evidence to back up any of the "peer reviewed" papers you listed in your posts. All those papers are false and wrong on 9/11. I have no one able to rationally support any ideas from any of those papers you posted.

You take all you have to support your ideas on 9/11 and you have zip; why?

your post http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3306907&postcount=1102 about this source http://www.vermontguardian.com/commentary/032007/TwinTowers.shtml
"The interesting fact is that each of these 110-story Twin Towers fell upon itself in about ten seconds at nearly free-fall speed. This violates Newton’s Law of Conservation of Momentum that would require that as the stationary inertia of each floor is overcome by being hit, the mass (weight) increases and the free-fall speed decreases. "

Here is a sample of the stuff you posted as your expert stuff! It is so stupid it defies being called stupid, we need a new term for stupid by an order of maginitude. What would that be? Dylanaveried? Jonethermited? Where do you find such dumb stuff to share with us?
How do you do that so effortlessly?

thewholesoul

5th January 2008, 07:32 PM

Now i stated a fact that no – none - steel framed skyscraper prior to 911 had exhibited total collapse due to fire and gravity.

Belz replied NONE ? Are you that ignorant ? Sheesh, even TRUTHERS mention the Meridian plaza.

So i went to a truther website and Belz was right TRUTHER did mention Merdian Plaza
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html
Look what they had to say about that...

One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire started on the 22nd floor and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss. It was later described by Philadelphia officials as "the most significant fire in this century".
The fire caused window breakage, cracking of granite, and failures of spandrel panel connections. Despite the severity and duration of the fire, as evidenced by the damage the building sustained, no part of the building collapsed.

Now who looks ignorant Belz?

chris lz

5th January 2008, 08:08 PM

Gravy

5th January 2008, 11:10 PM

chris lz

6th January 2008, 12:01 AM

Other events on the floors above, such as elevators falling, or other shaft explosions, can easily explain the second noise he said he heard.

Thanks Mark. I just wanted to make sure that fits with the evidence, but I guess it's also common sense. Are there in fact first hand accounts of others stating they heard at least two explosive noises immediately after the impact?

That said, how much weight would you give the "he heard it through steel first" claim? I'm not sure what to think on that one.

Cheers

Chris

thewholesoul

6th January 2008, 09:11 AM

Oh, innocent Arus! Everyone knows that not a single piece of flaming debris could have fallen down those shafts, which magically sealed themselves after being hit by airliners, and not a single spark could have been caused by anything in the shafts. It's umpossible!

i tell you what else is umpossible - i imagine there wasnt just one piece of flamming debris or spark - but magically none of these pieces of flamming debris or sparks ignited the jet fuel until they past 70+ floors of jet fuel. pretty amazing dont you think that this would happen.

and i know you cant provide an explanation and i know all your suggestions are nothing more than unproven speculation.

thewholesoul

6th January 2008, 10:18 AM

Just read Gravy's Rodriguez paper. Forgive me if answered already, but I'm not sure I'm finding the answer I seek. What is the consensus view here, if any, on how best to explain Rodriguez's explosion-before-impact claim? Faulty memory? Sound travels through metal faster than air/he therefore heard the impact sound twice? Is it simply too speculative to say? Or did I miss the punchline?

Hey chris.

The consensus view in relation to william rodriguez is that

(a) it is highly unlikely that he could have heard the plane impact 90+ floors above. This i agree with because he describes the explosion coming from below and becasue the explosion he experienced below he claims pushed him upwards

(b) the consensus is that the explosion rodriguez claimed to have heard resulted from jet fuel travelling down the elevator shaft, past the elevator car 50, and then eventhough it could have ignited at any point the jet fuel first became ignited and deflagrated at the B2-3 level in both towers (assuming Morelli’s testimony is correct).

(c) as to what ignited the descending fuel all we have is speculation in this room because NIST never conducted a thorough investigation into the explosion in the basement and no tests were carried out to prove any proposed ignition source.

(d) it is a fact that a thermite reaction or incendary devices can ignite jet fuel and no-one in this room has ruled out this as a possibility.

(e) but the key question to grravy that he either ignores, avoids, or is unable to answer is that if the jet fuel “could have ignited and deflagrated at any point” (see gravy #360) when descending down the elevator shaft, how come it first deflagrated at the same area B2-3 in both Towers? not below B2-3 where one would naturally assume the jet fuel to accumulate due to gravity and not above B2-3 because we know that “fireballs did not travel down the elevator shafts from the imapct zone” (see gravy #360).

So tell us all gravy – how could the flammable debris that you speculate was the ignition source of the jet fuel NOT ignite before it reached B2-3 in BOTH towers? Do you have any plausible explanation for this?

but to close chris, as for the second explosion rodriguez heard - i agree with gravy - that it could have been elevators crashing down.

beachnut

6th January 2008, 10:49 AM

Now i stated a fact that no – none - steel framed skyscraper prior to 911 had exhibited total collapse due to fire and gravity.
Belz replied
So i went to a truther website and Belz was right TRUTHER did mention Merdian Plaza
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html
Look what they had to say about that...
Now who looks ignorant Belz?
What happen to the building? Details please. Where is the building today? Show me the building that did not fail in fire today!

Gee whiz, why do firemen think building can fall due to fire, shallow researcher truth person? All interior firefighting efforts were halted after almost 11 hours of uninterrupted fire in the building. Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged floors.

I wonder what saved the building besides the fireproofing was not compromised and the air source was limited! What saved the building from collapse? The fire was stopped when it reached the 30th floor, which was protected by automatic sprinklers.
Oh, the fire was stopped? Where did the Airliner strike this building at 500 mph and deliver 10,000 gallons of fuel? Truth person, where is the big gapping hole letting in tons of air to make the fire more effective?

Where is the building TODAY?

Here is another building fire from your source of woo and where is this building?The most recent case of a severe high-rise fire is the one that destroyed the Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain on February 12, 2005.Oops, building destoryed by fire? And the building was hit by how big a jet, how fast, and how much fuel? Hello?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_12447454a26a3309fa.jpgOh no, the steel stucture above the fire fell! You said no steel stucture had fallen, it seems all this steel fell like it melted, but gee, it just got hot in a fire with out 10,000 gallons of extra fuel, and it failed fast! Darn, why did the core stand? CONCRETE? Yes. Where is this building today? Why? What caused it?

If you stand for truth, you have to tell me what airline hit this building please? Hurry, your truthy side is showing.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/124474550e45019258.jpg
Here is some steel structure that did not fail in WTC5? No, it did fail and look, the shell is standing but the building is gutted by fire? How did this happen? Gee, I think the fire department was spraying WTC6 and 5 as they could get assets to do so. But see the steel frame building failed due to fire? You know they studied the supports and failure modes in WTC5 and 6 due to fire? Do you know anything about 9/11 and fire?
How does fire bend that steel so easy?

http://www.beachymon.com/photo/onemeridiansag.jpg
Why did they fear failure, it was just a fire and the fireproofing was not dislodged like in the WTC. What made the floors sag, and why do firemen fear the building will fall since you truth people say it can't happen? Oh, because in real life, in reality, buildings do fail in fire. This was One Meridian Plaza, where is it today?

thewholesoul

6th January 2008, 11:49 AM

Here is a classic Belz:

In relation to the claim that – total collapse is inevitable post initial collapse – i said

Here you are clearly making a “CLAIM”. A claim which has “not been proven” by “experimentation” but rather is assumed to be true.

Belz replied It's not ASSUMED to be true. When such a significant mass falls, it just doesn't stop.

I then tried to clarify the error he made
allow me to rephrase - it IS ASSUMED to be true because when such a significant mass falls, it IS ASSUMED that it just doesnt stop.

Now instead of realising the obvious error in his reasoning Belz replies
It's assumed from experience, dummy

now from the onset of this brief exchange i was arguing that the claim – total collapse is inevitable post initial collapse – was an unproven assumption.

Belz actually believes that when he concedes to my point that the claim “is assumed” that somehow that refutes my argument? By the way Belz even if the claim is assumed from experience – that does NOT remove the fact that an assumption has been made!!! think about it - please

As i discussed elsewhere in previous posts – to assume that the twin towers and tower 7 totally collapsed based on experience is a complete and utterly absurd assumption. Because never in the history of steel framed skyscrapers has fire and gravity resulted in this observed outcome. In other words, mankind has never experienced prior to the three “alleged” cases on 911 that a steel framed skyscrapers totally collapsed due to fire and gravity.

I always get a good laugh when you think that you are refuting my point when in fact you are agreeing with me. The cherry on the cake is when you insult my intelligence in the process.

thewholesoul

6th January 2008, 11:56 AM

[COLOR=black]What happen to the building? Details please. Where is the building today?

hahahahhaha - i claimed that never - not once in history prior to the three "alleged" cases on 911 has a steel framed skyscraper exhibted a total collapse due to fire and gravity and you provide some photos of steel framed buildings that did NOT exhibit a total collapse due to fire and gravity??

keep up the good work debunking!!!

beachnut

6th January 2008, 12:13 PM

hahahahhaha - i claimed that never - not once in history prior to the three "alleged" cases on 911 has a steel framed skyscraper exhibted a total collapse due to fire and gravity and you provide some photos of steel framed buildings that did NOT exhibit a total collapse due to fire and gravity??

keep up the good work debunking!!!
Tell me please where is One Meridian Plaza today? Simple question. The building was not hit by an aircraft, there was not 10,000 gallons of fuel, so where is the building?

Tell me why they stopped fighting the fire?

I assume you have read the technical report
High-rise Office Building Fire
One Meridian Plaza
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

and you are ready to tell all why the WTC should not have failed. I also assume you can tell me why you can compare this fire to the WTC fires; how they are the same and different. I think it is funny how you bring this up but the fire department left because of possible collapse, and you compare it to a building where it did collapse. Irony.

Oh, all fires there is a possibility of structural failure and collapse? YES Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged floors
So tell me, how many structural engineers have you talked to about WTC failure? Was that none? Yes, you are a researched challenged truther with zero facts, just hearsay talk about buildings that do not exist because they were destroyed by FIRE. Destroyed by fire. Like the WTC many buildings have been destroyed by fire. Did you see those floors sagging 3 feet? Wow, where is One Meridian Plaza today?

Gravy

6th January 2008, 12:14 PM

Thanks Mark. I just wanted to make sure that fits with the evidence, but I guess it's also common sense. Are there in fact first hand accounts of others stating they heard at least two explosive noises immediately after the impact?Again, the basement explosion wasn't immediately after impact. That said, many witnesses, including Rodriguez's supervisor, describe multiple events after the impact. It's impossible to know which of these Rodriguez may have heard.

[/quote]That said, how much weight would you give the "he heard it through steel first" claim? I'm not sure what to think on that one.[/quote]That was first posited when Rodriguez was claiming that the second sound "way on top" came 1-2 seconds after the first. However, it doesn't correspond to what others experienced, and would require the existence of another major basement blast long after the one that burned Felipe David.

chris lz

7th January 2008, 03:28 AM

Gravy,

Got it. Obviously wasn't reading your reply carefully. I'll go back and re-read your essay.

Wholesoul, thanks too for your reply.

(e) but the key question . . . is that if the jet fuel “could have ignited and deflagrated at any point” (see gravy #360) when descending down the elevator shaft, how come it first deflagrated at the same area B2-3 in both Towers? not below B2-3 where one would naturally assume the jet fuel to accumulate due to gravity and not above B2-3 because we know that “fireballs did not travel down the elevator shafts from the imapct zone” (see gravy #360).

Being new to this argument, I'd need to hear it spelled out in greater depth to judge it. Why is it a "key" question?

funk de fino

7th January 2008, 04:02 AM

look you can call me a liar if that pleases you, i will be presenting an argument for the use and evidence of thermite at wtc. Of course if there is evidence of thermite that would support all testimony who claimed to have heard explosions. Your welcome to debate – but calling me a lar and steven jones a liar only demonstrates how receptive or rather unreceptive you are going to be to my argumnets.

Jones is a liar

Look you teach this stuff. But you dont have to be a teacher to posses common sense. There are two options because the machines werent inside the elevator shaft that means that (A) the descending jet fuel entered the machine room and became ignited from the sparks etc, or (B) the sparks entered the elevator room being ejected from the machines.

No, there are many more options

Either way, you will agree, we have to have contact between the sparks and the jet fuel. Of the two possibilities the former seems more plausible

No the ignition source has to contact the explosive atmsophere not the jet fuel itself. Do you understand this? The ignition source does not have to physically touch the jet fuel.

I was only parrating off what i heard on their documentary.

This exposes your lack of common sense and research capabilities

If however the elevator shaft is airtight then that does not mean that the elevators could not move up and down. Cables were responsible for pulling the elevator up and down.

Yes it does. If they are airtight there is nowhere for the air to move to when the elevator moves up and down. Try this experient. Get a hypodermic syringe, make sure there is no needle. Now block off the end with your thumb and then try to depress the plunger. What happens?

The occupants having nothing to breathe is a much stronger argumnet. Which completely refutes the notion that the elevator shafts were airtight.

Not stronger or better just common sense. If you think elevator shafts are airtight you have no commonsense. If this is because you saw it on a DVD, then you are using argument by gullibilty. In both cases you fail.

i have already achieved my goal despite my lack of knowledge in the subject area.

Its helps to know what you are talking about before you use what you think you know to accuse people of murder.

So when defenders of the official hypothesis claim that the jet fuel was ignited by x, y, or z – they are really only speculating. I think it is important that people in this room recognise the difference between speculation and known proven facts.

yes, the evidence is there to support a multitude of ignition sources. there is none to support your thermite fantasy

Moreover, because we know that a thermite reaction or incendary devices can cause fuel to ignite we can not rule this possibility out. Not one person in this room argued against the fact that thermite reaction or incendary devices can serve as an ignition source for jet fuel.

We rule it out as implausible due to lack of evidence. And stop it with the "in this room" crap. This is not My Cousin Vinnie

We will determine how implausible it is when we discuss the evidence for thermite.

You have cast iron evidence for thermite but more than six years after the attacks and you have done what? I do hope your evidence is not Jones the liar?

Again you provided no sound reason why experimentation could not be carried out.

Some of the experimentation is unfeasible. Most is not required. I have tried to show you this and you fail to understand.

I agree that switches can and do cause ignition. But the position of those switches relative to descending fuel is relevant. Where they exposed or not? The kind of switches is also relevant – you say the ones in the towers did not have special safeguards – where is your source for that claim? If indeed the light switches were the cause then one would expect that the fuel would have deflagrated all the way down the elevator shaft because light switches i assume would have been positioned all the way the elevator shaft. But this did not happen – which brings into doubt that the light switches were the cause.

Switches which operate in explosive atmospheres are special ones. Switches used in houses and office buildings are not special switches. They are normal switches. Normal switches produce sparks when operated. Relays produce sparks when operated. This is why in locations I design systems for I need to use special switches and realys to prevent these sparks.

Experimentation is not a fantazy – you simply lack imagination. For example, to repeat, NIST tested how a jet liner could remove the fireproofing paint from the steel columns on 8 separate floors. How did they do that? They placed fireproofing in a wooden box and shot it with a shotgun!!!!
So this argument, mentioned previously as well

Not all experiments are fantasy. Ones that are unfeasible or not required are

Should obviously apply to NIST as well. In fact i bet you would suspend all critcial thinking and even claim that there was nothing wrong with their test. So the fact that you do not apply the same standards for experimentation on NIST as you do my humble suggestions simply means that you apply double standards my friend.

I think if you read back through all your posts it is obvious you have no idea what you are talking about most of the time. I am not commenting on NIST tests, you are. You are assuming you know what I think about NISTS tests and also my thoughts on NIST in general. I cannot have double standards if you do not know my first standard

Heres is what you did say about the NIST experimentation
I know you are not judging NIST that is because you are suspending your critical thinking and applying it solely to suggestions i made concerning experimentation. I agree they are better at what they do but i would have one or two objections to their shotgun experiment – dont you??? Why do hold such reverance to authority? are NIST somehow beyond criticism – even judgment – in your mind?

You tell me that i just have to deal with it – i am dealing with it, i am applying critical thinking to their experimentations and their lack of experimentations. The way you deal with NIST is through passivity, by suspending your crtical judgement and applying it soley to me for suggesting that experiments could be performed.

see above. you are not applying critical thinking at all.

Ok we are going to have to disagree on that one. In my opinion if i, or a relative or friend of mine was burnt or injured from the explosion in the basement, and if i and many others thought it was a bomb that caused the explosion – i personally would want to know exactly, definitively, what was the cause. And I would want at the very least an investigation into the causes of the explosion in the basement not just speculation backed up by more specualtion which i have established is all we seem to be doing.

this is not critical thinking. you want to know exactly what is was right down to exactly which switch caused the explosive atmnosphere to ignite. this is not real world thinking either.

In an elevator shaft i think we could reduce or limit the causes down from literally thousands. Falling debris, lighting, and/or incendary devices seem to be the front runners.

Incendiary devices are not even at the races pal.

Having been on their website i found nothing. So i tell you what, you tell me what they said an i will tell you whether i agree with it or not.

lack of research skills again

www.911blogger.com/node/13149
you asked if i agreed with everything the NSTB and FAA reported about 911. i thought it would be relevant to establish that fact the FAA do not publicise all their information about 911 which renders it an impossibility to make an informed decision on whether i happen to agree with their information or not.

The FAA say that those four airliners were destroyed that day due to the terrorist attacks. Do you believe them?

So if scaling is not an obstacle why did you say this

Yet again misunderstanding on your part.

Like i said the position and exposure is relevant. The kind of light is relevant. And could be tested. Given that some people swear that the explosion in the basement was a bomb i think it would be nice to settle this issue. Like i said if it was the lighting in the sahft that cuased the jet fuel to ignite then common sense tells us that ignition would have occured long before the jet fuel reach the basement – but this did not happen. You comment below only supports my suspicions

It did not have to happen in the elevator shaft. Even if it did, it may also have occured in the basement.

All of your possible ignition sources and the more you provide only make it more incredible that the jet fuel could have reached the basement without igniting and explosing into a fireball beforehand.

You are forgetting the LEL and UEL again. You have the have the three things for the fire remember. If we have all the correct ignition sources in the shaft. What could be missing from the equation?

Of course 911 is not a joke – and you know damn well that i never said it was!

What was so funny then, that you had to mention it in the same thread you are accusing people of murder?

Someone in this room, we all know who, openly stated that he is willing to “disrespect” people who lost family members on 911 because he “disagrees” with them. Why dont you apply your moral standards to that person where it belongs. I never said 911 was a joke – and you god damn know that sir!

Cousin Vinnie again. It makes you look foolish and childish.

This is a ridiculous and pointless question.

No. it is not. I am trying to shopw you something about critical thinking yet you fail to see this.

In order to determine what was the cause of the jet fuel in the basement of the wtc we dont say well in a house with no previous histroy of terrorist attacks where gas explosions and normally the result of electrical ignition sources means that the explosion in the basement was also most likely caused by the same ignition source.

I never said that. I am asking you questions so that we can look at your answers and see what critical thinking really is. You are avoiding answering the question so we can move on no further.

to answer the question however the ignition source in the house example could have been a variety of possible to probable causes - including thermite reaction if it was an arson attack. Without an investigation it is impossible to prove anything

Have you any proof of anyone ever using thermite for an arson attack?

You are correct however, the ignition source could have been quite a few things. I am asking you to tell me what you think the most likely would be? An assumption based on common sense if you like.

It is a hypothetical question. But i would say in the majority of gas explosions in a house an electrical source would be the culprit for ignition.

What would be the source of this electrical spark for ignition? Using common sense?

But if your saying categorically that the explosion in the basement of wtc was caused by lighting – then why do you continue to resist any suggestion of experimentation that would prove your assumption true?? It makes no sense at all.

I am not categorically saying anything of the sort. I am saying there are a multitude of possible ingition sources for the fuel. All of which we know were present. I am saying it is impossible and unecessary to experiment to show the exact source of this ignition. Everyone know that voltages in offices and homes have enough energy to cause an explosion in an explosive atmsophere. We do not have to experiment this any more.

If you claim it is thermite then you have to prove thermite was present. Who put it there. Where it was. How it was set off. For what reason.

Burden of proof again. You have this all wrong. I do not have to argue about all the possible sources of ignition because we know they were all there and all capable. If you think thermite should be added to the list then you have to prove it was there.

funk de fino

7th January 2008, 04:35 AM

On this link you will read structural engineers disagree about the definition of progressive collapse. "progressive collapse is a nebulous term" they say. Any collapse is progressive in that one thing fails, something else fails, and so on."
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/disinfo/collapse/csemag_progcollapse.html

I ignored your 0post # 1102 because it was a car wreck and did not make sense. It was full of you saying I agreed with something when I did not and you accusing me of avoiding questions when you in fact did exactly the same.

I note above you quote 911 truth site

on this link the give a clear definition
http://www.gostructural.com/print.asp?id=236
Progressive collapse is defined as the spread of an initial local failure from element to element, eventually resulting in the collapse of an entire structure or a disproportionately large part of it

Now a quote from a real site, good you are learning

on this link they give a definiton of progressive collapse but explain that NIST never clarifies global collapse in relation to total progressive collapse
http://911review.com/coverup/fantasy/progressive.html”

" Progressive collapse describes a collapse in which an initiating event leads to a disproportionate collapse. This phenomenon is rare, especially in steel-framed buildings. The phenomenon of total progressive collapse is even more rare. In fact, there appears to be no example of total progressive collapse of a steel-framed building outside of the alleged examples of the Twin Towers and Building

“Despite the absence of a single example of total progressive collapse of a steel-framed building before or after 9/11/01, the alleged phenomenon is the lynchpin of the official explanation for the collapse of the Twin Towers and Building 7. As if to obscure this fact, NIST's report on the Twin Towers employs a new term for the phenomenon: global collapse, which it uses multiple times without clarifying its relationship to total progressive collapse, although it also uses the term "progressive collapse" 16 times "

Oh no, back to quoting 911 truth sites again

personally i believe the difference between a progressive collapse and a global collapse is that the former can be the latter but the latter can never be the former.

Now this is all you had to do. Give me your own words and theory. Why did you feel the need to quote truther sites. Why not just go straight to engineering sites?

http://www.nibs.org/MMC/ProgCollapse%20presentations/HallSohn%20Paper.pdf

Though the overall collapse of the World Trade Center Towers in New York on September 11, 2001 still requires detailed study, it is clear that the global collapse was initiated by local damage (i.e., immediate damage from the aircraft impacts, enhanced by high temperature effects due to fires) [2]. This fits very well with the definition of progressive collapse.
The most significant difference between progressive collapse and global collapse is the initiation by relatively localized damage, and an evolution time to the global collapse. These two characteristics of a localized damage initiation and a delay time (if the global collapse cannot be avoided) may enable one to control the type and range of progressive collapse to minimize the extent of final damage.

http://www.aisc.org/Content/ContentGroups/Documents/freePubs/Blast_Symposium_Proceedings.pdf

A progressive collapse is when localised failure or damage leads to a collapse of a significant amount or indeed all of the structure. It is a disproportionate amount of damage for the initial amount of damage

A progressive collpase can progress into a global collapse

Global collapse can be the product of a progressive collapse

You may have a progressive collpase which does not manifest into a global collapse.

Do you agree?

funk de fino

7th January 2008, 05:02 AM

Just like the journalfor911truth

You mean the JONES? They are not correctly peer reviewed and you know it.

If it is this site you mention then do you agree with this statement from the site

Watch building 7's collapse in 6.5 seconds. This 47-story steel building wasn't hit by a plane. Do you think explosives were used?

accurate statement?

You prove the peer reviewed papers of journalsfor911 truth wrong.

They are not peer reviewed and if they were then the statement above is wrong therefore the site is wrong

Mathematical proofs are not the same thing as experimental proofs. The former being more theoretical.

The calculations are either correct or they are not. If you think that total collapse is not possible then you have to disprove the calculations in the peer reviewed papers. They are peer reviewed, they are accepted, if you disagree you refute them.

I have been through the burden of proof argumnet countless times. The burden of proof rests on anybody’s shoulder who is presenting a new theory or stating a claim.
Defenders of the official story are presenting a new theory because progressive global collapse of a steel framed skyscraper is a new phenomena – a fact – i will remind you that you accept. Next is “total collapse was inevitable post inital collapse” a claim?
Of course it is. Therefore teh burden of proof rests on defenders of the official hypothesis AND advocates of CD hypothesis. i discussed this “double standard” in my post #1047.

Progressive collapse of buildings is not a new theory

Global collapse of buildings is not a new theory

Fire weakening steel is not a new theory

Office fires burning at very high temps is not a new theory

Aircraft flying a high speeds into other objects causing huge damages is not a new theory

You claiming that thermite or explosives brought down these towers is a new theory. You provide the proof. You do not even have any evidence never mind proof.

Maybe it does not “show” the explosion. but all the videos sure “sound” like an explosion.

Maybe the video footage was too distant for you. Perhaps you should read the following testimony of people who were right there that day....

They do not sound like demolition explosions. You show me one video of the tower that has demolition type explosions on it.

Paramedic Daniel Rivera “did – you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear pop pop pop pop pop?...i thought it was that.

Witness Timothy Burke “the building popped, lower than the fire...i was going oh, my god, there is a secondary device because the way the building popped. I thought it was an explosion”

Firefighter Edward Cachia – “it actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. We originally thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives...”

Assistant comissioner Stephan Gregory “i thought that i saw lower level flashes...(at) the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building”

Bolded above - there is your problem. now there were hundreds of cameras on the towers that day. show me one with demolition type sounds on it

Posting videos is not proving a hypothesis, sparky. Posting videos is evidence which supports a hypothesis, sparky. Evidence and proof are not teh same thing, sparky.

So the explosions heard on video are wind...hahahaha. it could be someone farting??

If people standing next to the buildings heard HUGE explosions – and cameras pointed at the same building on the same day record what sounds liek explosions. Whats the odds eh, that what is heard on the camera is an explosion, sparky?

You have neither evidence or proof of demolition or bombs or thermite

as for the speed of sound remark i made why did you ignore it

how long do you think it would tale for the "explosion noise" to travel that far?

in the end it does not matter because you, mr critical thinker, posted a faked video

you were fooled by this, you are being fooled by it all

please go to www.implosionworld.com and look in the cinema explosif section with your sound turned up and then come back here and tell me the difference between 911 and those videos

Belz...

7th January 2008, 05:56 AM

Belz...

7th January 2008, 05:58 AM

Here is a classic Belz:

In relation to the claim that – total collapse is inevitable post initial collapse – i said

Belz replied

I then tried to clarify the error he made

Now instead of realising the obvious error in his reasoning Belz replies

now from the onset of this brief exchange i was arguing that the claim – total collapse is inevitable post initial collapse – was an unproven assumption.

Belz actually believes that when he concedes to my point that the claim “is assumed” that somehow that refutes my argument? By the way Belz even if the claim is assumed from experience – that does NOT remove the fact that an assumption has been made!!! think about it - please

As i discussed elsewhere in previous posts – to assume that the twin towers and tower 7 totally collapsed based on experience is a complete and utterly absurd assumption. Because never in the history of steel framed skyscrapers has fire and gravity resulted in this observed outcome. In other words, mankind has never experienced prior to the three “alleged” cases on 911 that a steel framed skyscrapers totally collapsed due to fire and gravity.

I always get a good laugh when you think that you are refuting my point when in fact you are agreeing with me. The cherry on the cake is when you insult my intelligence in the process.

Soul, instead of playing a points game in which you adress a non-existant fan base, perhaps you should try to understand the things I said.

Including NOT ignoring my OTHER points.

Do you deny that structures collapse completely ? Why does it have to be a similar structure, now ?

twinstead

7th January 2008, 06:01 AM

You, actually. Read about WHICH parts of the building collapsed.

Maybe you need to give him a clue?

Belz...

7th January 2008, 08:05 AM

A clue ? Truthers need to GET a clue.

thewholesoul

7th January 2008, 08:16 AM

Hey belz – below is your comments in chronalogical order in relation to whether the official hypothesis has been proven according to the scientific method. Your repsonses are a model of inconsistency.

i said - obviously no experimnets have been conducted beyond the initial collapse which is why the official hypothesis remains largely unproven.

That's only if you can show that, once the collapse was initiated, it could be stopped.

#1: why do i have to prove the claim made within the official hypothesis? the burden of proof rests on all advocates of unproven hypotheses. Finally, if i am explaining to you the reason why the official hypothesis remains unproven and you answer that i should prove that - once collapse initiated that it could be stopped – you are not denying therefore that the official hypothesis remains unproven.

i said - so total collapse was proven?
Go to Manhattan. Look for the towers

#2: absurd answer. because the towers totally collapsed does not prove by tests, experimentation and/or computer modelling what caused the total collapse.

i said - the fact that the official hypothesis remains unproven is because it has not been tested either through scale models or computer models.
Whole, the accepted theory IS the official one. That means it's YOUR burden to prove it wrong.

#3: because the official hypothesis is more widely accepted does not in itself constitute proof according to the scentific method. You yourself agreed that acceptance does not mean that a hypothesis is proven
When most professionals in a given field accept a given theory, it's not like an argument from popularity. It may not be proof that something is true, but it's sure better than a popular poll.

Here you acknowledge that widely accepted may not = that something is proven. This is correct. Only when what is widely accepted is proven by tests, experimentation, and/or computer modelling will the truth of what is widely accpeted be scientifically established and validated.

i said - Let me explain to you again the reason why the official hypothesis remains unproven. the official hypothesis in relation to the total collapse has not been tested.
Of course it's been tested. Two airliners crashed into the WTC towers on 9/11. They collapsed.

#4: obviously your confusing the observed phenomena with experimentation.

i said - Now as soon as you can tell me which large or partial models and/or computer models were used to test the total collapse of the twin towers – please let me know.
Again, you ignore what I've said more than once: once the collapse was initiated, we all agree that it could not be stopped because the forces involved were overwhelming

#5: avoiding the issue. The truth is you cannot provide one example when the total collapse of the twin towers was tested according to the scientific method. Instead of admitting that your wrong you return to an assumption i have discussed in previous posts. The very assumption, i might add, that needs to be proven thorugh tests, experimentation, and/or computer models.

i said - So do you beleive the official hypotehsis is proven?
I believe it is the most rational explanation that takes all data into consideration.

#6: a hypothesis is a rational explanation for a given phenomena see definition no.4 above dictionary.com. but my point is that the official explanation has not been proven by the scientific method.

i said - The only logical way you can maintain your position and statement – the only logical way – is if you can provide just one example or experiment when the total collapse has been tested. merely saying, claiming and assuming that it is inevitable DOES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING FOR YOU.
You mean to say that nothing has ever collapsed? There are enough examples of building collapses to show what fires can do to a building and what happens when collapse begins. The fact that no skyscraper even close to the size of the WTC collapsed, especially in those conditions, before 9/11 is only an indication that it never happened before, not one that it couldn't. .

The reason why I stand by my statement is that experience teaches us that when things collapse, bad things happen.

We KNOW that fire destroys buildings, because it happens

#7: first thing to notice here is that that Belz fails to provide just one example or experiment when the total collapse of the wtc was tested. that was the only logical way he could have maintained his stated position that – the official hypothesis has been proven by the scientific method. Instead he argues that (i) because buildings collapse, (ii) because we have experience that buildings collapse, and (iii) because we know fire destroys buildings - that somehow that constitutes PROOF BY EXPERIMENTATION that the three skyscrapers on 911 totally collapsed due to fire and gravity. Of course it does not. He acknowledges the fact that total collapse due to fire and gravity has never happened before to a skyscraper and claims that this fact does not mean that it could not have happened before to a skyscraper – i accept his point. However that does not prove that total collapse happened as the official hypothesis proposes, and given that it was “allegedly” the FIRST TIME it did happen from fire and gravity this should be proven ture conclusively since from experience total collapse of skyscrapers has predominently occured due to controlled demolition.

Next Belz suggests that totoal collapse has been proven because

We also know that, considering the sheer mass of 30+ floors of a building the size of the WTC towers, once collapse begins, the kinetic forces involved are far too great for a single floor to handle, and we KNOW that it would only affect each floor separatly while crashing down. Where's the problem ?

The problem is that none of these assumptions have been proven by the scientific method. In my post #1102 you will find several scholars who present peer reviewed papers that assert that they know the buildings would not have totally collapsed post intial collapse. Some even dispute the initial collapse would have occured.

i said - do you accept that to date the total collapse has not been proven through the scientifc method
No

Ok belz this is the last respeonse i am sending you on this particular issue. If you believe that the total collapse has been proven through the scientific method – and if what your saying is true – then i am positive you can present just one of the actual tests, experiments, and/or compuer modelling of the total collaspe of the twin towers.

So its either put up or shut up!

thewholesoul

7th January 2008, 08:36 AM

Soul, instead of playing a points game in which you adress a non-existant fan base, perhaps you should try to understand the things I said.

who wants fans?

if this was a points game between me and you i think i would be winning.

Including NOT ignoring my OTHER points.

i will answer, or at least try to answer, any question you bring to the table - provided its on topic. what OTHER points. list them in a rational order, tell me which post# i can find them - PRESENT THEM clearly and categorically and i will respond to them one at a time.

Do you deny that structures collapse completely ? Why does it have to be a similar structure, now ?

of course i did not deny nor would i ever deny that structures collapse completely - to suggest otherwise is absurd.

the reason i rightly emphasis steel framed skyscrapers is because never in the history of such structures has fire and gravity resulted in a total collapse apart from the three "alleged" cases on 911.

although tower 1+2+7 were all steel framed skyscrapers, tower 7 exhibited a different steel frame structure than tower 1+2

Dave Rogers

7th January 2008, 08:50 AM

the reason i rightly emphasis steel framed skyscrapers is because never in the history of such structures has fire and gravity resulted in a total collapse apart from the three "alleged" cases on 911.

Fire, gravity and being hit by (a) a jet plane, (b) a jet plane, and (c) large chunks of WTC1. Just in case you'd forgotten that minor point.

And never in the history of such structures has any suffered such a large fire as WTC7 totally unfought, or fires that spread so rapidly over such a large area due to the presence of jet fuel in WTC1 and 2. Unprecedented circumstances produced unprecedented results.

And don't forget the Kader toy factory.

Dave

thewholesoul

7th January 2008, 08:59 AM

hey chris

(e) but the key question . . . is that if the jet fuel “could have ignited and deflagrated at any point” (see gravy #360) when descending down the elevator shaft, how come it first deflagrated at the same area B2-3 in both Towers? not below B2-3 where one would naturally assume the jet fuel to accumulate due to gravity and not above B2-3 because we know that “fireballs did not travel down the elevator shafts from the imapct zone” (see gravy #360).

Being new to this argument, I'd need to hear it spelled out in greater depth to judge it. Why is it a "key" question?

firstly, it is my personal belief that it is a key question.

secondly, without proof of any proposed explanation- we are only speculating as to what is the most plausible explanation in relation to what caused the explosion in the basement. fuel deflagration caused by flamming debris is hardly plausible if it is not possible that the flamming debris could have reached 90 floors below without igniting the jet fuel into a fireball first.

third, but maybe i am overly sceptical and you could provide a rational explanation as to how the flamming debris did not ignite the jet fuel into a fireball before it reached 90 floors below.

fourth, it is key because if flamming debris or lighting within the elevator shaft were not the ignition source of the jet fuel - derived and assumed from the fact that the jet fuel did not deflagrate prior to reaching the basement despite being in contact with flamming debris and lighting then - maybe something else was the cause of the explosion in the basement i.e. that we require a new and more plausible explanation

thats my penny's worth anyhow.

Belz...

7th January 2008, 10:22 AM

#3: because the official hypothesis is more widely accepted does not in itself constitute proof according to the scentific method.

Soul, I think you're confusing what I'm saying with what you want me to say. I said that it's acceptance amongst experts makes it the DEFAULT theory. YOU are challenging it, YOU must bear the burden of proof.

#4: obviously your confusing the observed phenomena with experimentation.

No, experimentation IS an observed phenomena. Haven't you ever seen a building collapse ?

#5: avoiding the issue. The truth is you cannot provide one example when the total collapse of the twin towers was tested according to the scientific method.

Actually, the truth is that I told you it was unnecessary.

#6: a hypothesis is a rational explanation for a given phenomena see definition no.4 above dictionary.com. but my point is that the official explanation has not been proven by the scientific method.

You keep fighting that strawman, but it's a little worn out. Please educate yourself as to how collapses work and what kinetic energy is. Only an ignoramus would think that a single floor's worth of columns could stop a falling mass of 30+ stories.

#7: first thing to notice here is that that Belz fails to provide just one example or experiment when the total collapse of the wtc was tested.

Also notice that he doesn't need to. Soul, you're talking to your mythical audience, again.

The problem is that none of these assumptions have been proven by the scientific method.

Please demonstrate the the Earth is spherical, Soul.

Ok belz this is the last respeonse i am sending you on this particular issue. If you believe that the total collapse has been proven through the scientific method – and if what your saying is true – then i am positive you can present just one of the actual tests, experiments, and/or compuer modelling of the total collaspe of the twin towers.

So its either put up or shut up!

What part of "doesn't need to" don't you understand ?

who wants fans?

if this was a points game between me and you i think i would be winning.

Thank you for making my point.

You are unable to show that your hypothesis is true about the collapse of the towers. Case closed.

of course i did not deny nor would i ever deny that structures collapse completely - to suggest otherwise is absurd.

the reason i rightly emphasis steel framed skyscrapers is because never in the history of such structures has fire and gravity resulted in a total collapse apart from the three "alleged" cases on 911.

Non sequitur.

Belz...

7th January 2008, 10:23 AM

Soul, are you going to adress my reply concerning the videos you linked to ?

Belz...

7th January 2008, 10:25 AM

And, Soul. Perhaps you can give me the solution to the question of why I don't think my tax dollars contribute to the development of nuclear weapons ?

thewholesoul

7th January 2008, 12:27 PM

I said I agree that switches can and do cause ignition. But the position of those switches relative to descending fuel is relevant. Where they exposed or not? The kind of switches is also relevant – you say the ones in the towers did not have special safeguards – where is your source for that claim? If indeed the light switches were the cause then one would expect that the fuel would have deflagrated all the way down the elevator shaft because light switches i assume would have been positioned all the way the elevator shaft. But this did not happen – which brings into doubt that the light switches were the cause.

Switches which operate in explosive atmospheres are special ones. Switches used in houses and office buildings are not special switches. They are normal switches. Normal switches produce sparks when operated. Relays produce sparks when operated. This is why in locations I design systems for I need to use special switches and realys to prevent these sparks.

So what was your source? How do you know for certain what kind of switiches were actually inside the elevator shaft of the twin towers? How do you know for certain that they were positioned inside the elevator shaft and that they were located in an exposed position relative to the descending jet fuel? Your claiming that you know that the switches in the towers did not have special safeguards – ok source that claim please instead of "describing" your occuaption.

Another point you ignore is this – using your common sense, and expertise in light switches – explain to me how the flammable jet fuel travelled down 90+floors without igniting into a fireball. If indeed the light switches were the cause and were alined all the way down the elevator shaft then surely the jet fuel would have deflagrated before it reached B2-3 because it must have been in contact with many many “non-special” light switches??

Imagine a house 10 storeys high and each floor had several non-special light switches. Unfortunately and by accident there was a gas leak on the 10th floor. However eventhough each floor had several non-special light switches the gas travelled all the way down to the ground floor and despite having come into contact with many non special light switches it suddenly explodes when it reached the basement floor.
I look forward to your response on that one.

I said Like i said if it was the lighting in the shaft that caused the jet fuel to ignite then common sense tells us that ignition would have occured long before the jet fuel reached the basement

It did not have to happen in the elevator shaft. Even if it did, it may also have occured in the basement.

Nice dodge. The point was how did it gets past all the present and capable ignition sources before it reached the basement?

I said All of your possible ignition sources and the more you provide only make it more incredible that the jet fuel could have reached the basement without igniting and explosing into a fireball beforehand.

You are forgetting the LEL and UEL again. You have the three things for the fire remember. If we have all the correct ignition sources in the shaft. What could be missing from the equation?
Common sense.

I am not forgeting the LEL and UEL. If the entire shaft possessed an explosive atmosphere and that explosive atmosphere was progressing downwards then one would expect that the explosive atmosphere would have exploded into a fireball before it reached the basement after it past and came into contact with numerous ignition sources.

But i am going to drive this question home. Here are some of the relevant quotes.
I am saying there are a multitude of possible ingition sources for the fuel. All of which we know were present .
I do not have to argue about all the possible sources of ignition because we know they were all there and all capable
thewholesoul, you seem to be under the impression that fireballs traveled down the elevator shafts from the impact zones. None of us make that claim, nor does NIST or anyone else.
Fuel poured down the shafts. It could have ignited and deflagrated at any point
LEL = Lower Explosive Limit UEL = Upper Explosive Limit
between these levels you have an explosive atmosphere that could be ignited with heat or spark

Ok – your the expert and the teacher on this subject. Now imagine i am one of your students.

I ask you, excuse me sir, but how did the jet fuel not ignite into a fireball before it reached B2-3 in both towers? It seems strange to me given that the elevator shafts were the only way the jet fuel had access to the basement, given that all the ignition sources where present within the elevator shaft, given they were all capable, and given there was an explosive atmosphere progressing downwards through the elevator– then how is it possible that the jet fuel did not deflagrate sooner? Everybody knows – even NIST - that a fireball did not travel down the elevator shaft from the impact zone?

would you sent me out of your classroom for that question?

Common sense experiments:
if you had a stream of jet fuel running along the road from point A to point B and you had a portable ignition source (flamming torch, a short cicuiting wire, etc) and you exposed the jet fuel to the ignition source starting at point A moving towards point B. I would expect that the jet fuel would ignite at point A, and that the probabilty of reaching point B would decrease as soon as one left point A.

The same logic applies to jet fuel flowing downwards through a tunnel, funnel, or elevator.

Jet fuel vapour experiment:
if you left the gas on at home, and when you entered the room and switched on the lights i would expect that the explosive atmosphere would ignite at the source of ignition .

If you had the same room full of gas, and instead of switching on a stationary light switch you flicked a match across the room. Will the match ignite at the moment of contact? will it travel half way across the room before ignition? or will it reach the far end of the room before it ignites the explosive atmosphere?

If you have an elevator shaft 100 metres and an explosive atmosphere was travelling downwards from point A to point B while contacting "non-special" light switches every 10 metres along the way. Would you expect the explosive atmosphere to ignite at the first light switch, the 2nd and so forth. Or would you expect the explosive atmosphere to reach the 10th switch before it ignited?

Try the same experiment as above except throw a flamming torch and debris into the explosive atmosphere and observe if the mixture can reach point B before deflagrating.

I am saying it is impossible and unecessary to experiment to show the exact source of this ignition

I am saying that experiments are always possible with enough imagination and resources.

I agree it is not necessary that we discover the exact source of ignition – but i am saying that experiments could be performed to prove how an explosive atmosphere in contact with multiple and capable ignition sources can pass over these multiple ignition sources from point A to point B without exploding. I contend itsumpossible !!

Thats a strong claim. Now if indeed it is impossible and cannot be proven by experimentation then we return to the question – what caused the “explosion” in the basement? An explosion some witnesses who were actually there in the basement that day, claimed was a bomb!!

thewholesoul

7th January 2008, 12:28 PM

Soul, are you going to adress my reply concerning the videos you linked to ?

will do amigo.

thewholesoul

7th January 2008, 12:34 PM

A progressive collapse is when localised failure or damage leads to a collapse of a significant amount or indeed all of the structure. It is a disproportionate amount of damage for the initial amount of damage

A progressive collpase can progress into a global collapse

Global collapse can be the product of a progressive collapse

You may have a progressive collpase which does not manifest into a global collapse.

Do you agree?

agreed.

Belz...

7th January 2008, 01:12 PM

Okay, Soul. Here's the solution to the burning question which you are unable to answer: I'm Canadian.

Thank you for playing. You fail.

thewholesoul

7th January 2008, 01:33 PM

They are not correctly peer reviewed and you know it.
Look if want to degenerate the debate into jones is a liar and 911 peer reviewed papers are not peer reviewed – fine.
But i disagree with you with sugar on top.
Peer review is a process of subjecting the author’s scholarly work, research or idea to the scrutiny ot others who are experts in the same field. Wikipedia
Besides on what authority, may i ask, do you claim that their papers are not peer reviewed?
They are not peer reviewed and if they were then the statement above is wrong therefore the site is wrong
Yes they were peer reviewed which means the statement above was correct and the site was telling the truth.
The calculations are either correct or they are not. If you think that total collapse is not possible then you have to disprove the calculations in the peer reviewed papers. They are peer reviewed, they are accepted, if you disagree you refute them.
You see your tactic. You say the peer reviewed papers of 911 scholars are not peer reviewed. Then you call the scholars liars. Then you pull out calculations supposting the official hypothesis and claim i have to refute these fine gentlemen who are not liars and have presented peer review papers. Give me a break.
The truth is mathematical calculations on a page are not the same thing as an actual experiment – why – because the former are theoretical by nature.
That is why i suggest the best way and perhaps the only way to prove whose calculations are right is through testing, experimentation, and/or computer modelling.
So you can drop waving your calculations supporting the official hypothesis as if to say they the official hypothesis is thereby proven by the scientific method.
I said Originally Posted by TWS
I have been through the burden of proof argumnet countless times. The burden of proof rests on anybody’s shoulder who is presenting a new theory or stating a claim .
Defenders of the official story are presenting a new theory because progressive global collapse of a steel framed skyscraper is a new phenomena – a fact – i will remind you that you accept. Next is “total collapse was inevitable post inital collapse” a claim?
Of course it is. Therefore teh burden of proof rests on defenders of the official hypothesis AND advocates of CD hypothesis. i discussed this “double standard” in my post #1047.
Progressive collapse of buildings is not a new theory

Global collapse of buildings is not a new theory

Fire weakening steel is not a new theory

Office fires burning at very high temps is not a new theory

Aircraft flying a high speeds into other objects causing huge damages is not a new theory

You claiming that thermite or explosives brought down these towers is a new theory. You provide the proof. You do not even have any evidence never mind proof.
You completely IGNORED the other half – how conveniant. Lets just repeat it then shall we.
Is - “total collapse was inevitable post inital collapse” - A CLAIM?
Is - “total collapse resulted from fire and gravity” – A CLAIM?
The above claims have to date not been tested. thats a fact you can accept or not. Based on this fact i can claim, confidently, that the official hypothesis has not been proven by the scientific method – and i defy anyone in this forum to produce any test, experiment, and/or computer model that proves TOTAL COLLAPSE of the twin towers was caused by fire and gravity.
So that the “stating a claim” covered, as for the “new theory”.
Controlled demolition of a steel framed skyscraper is NOT A NEW THEORY OR PHENOMENA – thats a fact you accept or not.
Total collapse of a steel framed skyscraper IS A NEW PHENOMENA – thats another fact you already accepted
Now when you have a new phenomena your are going to need a new theory, or hypothesis to explain that phenomena. Do you agree?
Or perhaps you can provide an example of one new phenomena that did not require a new theory or hypothesis.
Like i said before – the official hypothesis remains unproven – and the burden of proof my friend rests on anyone proposing a new theory or stating a claim. That means that advocates of CD hypothesis AND advocates of the official hypotehsis have the burden of proof.
I will concede however in light of another post you sent that may be i was wrong to say that progressive and global collapse was invented terminology. I would sure like if NIST provided their definition of a “global collapse” given that use the term often enough.
They do not sound like demolition explosions. You show me one video of the tower that has demolition type explosions on it
What is controlled demoltion – it is basically when explosives or incendary devices are used to to cut the vertical support structure so a global collapse can occur.
Now perhaps the explosions did not sound like “conventional” demolition explosives that you are familiar with. That is not to say that explosives or secondary devices did not produce the explosions heard by witnessess there that day.
I said Paramedic Daniel Rivera “did – you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear pop pop pop pop pop?...i thought it was that.

Witness Timothy Burke “the building popped, lower than the fire...i was going oh, my god, there is a secondary device because the way the building popped. I thought it was an explosion”

Firefighter Edward Cachia – “it actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. We originally thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives...”

Assistant comissioner Stephan Gregory “i thought that i saw lower level flashes...(at) the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building”
Bolded above - there is your problem. now there were hundreds of cameras on the towers that day. show me one with demolition type sounds on it
Ok so they “thought” they heard and saw explosives like in a demolition. But you “know” that it was not explosives. so tell me what did they “actually” hear and see. Or are you going to provide some more speculation?
as for the speed of sound remark i made why did you ignore it
I apologise.
I would prefer if you presented your case. Explain why you think the speed of sound removes the possibility that the sound of explosions were recorded.

how long do you think it would take for the "explosion noise" to travel that far?
not faster than the speed of sound.

thewholesoul

7th January 2008, 01:37 PM

Okay, Soul. Here's the solution to the burning question which you are unable to answer: I'm Canadian.

Thank you for playing. You fail.

hahahahahahah - i knew you were a fellow gringo. hey listen you score a half-a-point for that victory.

if the reason that YOUR taxes could finance investiagtions in america is because you are from canada you win. enjoy it while it lasts my firend.

Mobyseven

7th January 2008, 05:47 PM

let me be clear the "large fuel laden commercial aeroplanes" is responsible up to and not beyond the point of initial collapse. it is not presented as the reason why we observed total collapse according to the official story.

So the planes were responsible for the initial collapse?

Is it your position then, the the buildings should have halted their collapse once they had begun? On what physical basis do you claim this? Do you have any calculations you could present us with?

thewholesoul

7th January 2008, 05:59 PM

promised myself i wouldnt respond to this particular aspect of our debate but i couldnt resist.

I said #3: because the official hypothesis is more widely accepted does not in itself constitute proof according to the scentific method.
Soul, I think you're confusing what I'm saying with what you want me to say. I said that it's acceptance amongst experts makes it the DEFAULT theory. YOU are challenging it, YOU must bear the burden of proof
Thats the first time you said “default theory”. I want the CD hypothesis to be tested through experimentation and/or computer modelling. Alas only the official hypothesis has ever been investigated and if i suggested that the CD hypothesis be investigated you would say no it should not be.

Your position is an example of complete double speak: you claim that truthers must prove their theory yet you would object to it being officially investigated and tested. in other words truthers have the burden of proof yet truthers are denied the means to prove their hypothesis. sweet.

I said #4: obviously your confusing the observed phenomena with experimentation.
No, experimentation IS an observed phenomena. Haven't you ever seen a building collapse?
Of course experimentation is an observed phenomena – but terrorists crashing planes into the towers WAS NOT AN EXPERIMENT. If it was an experiment why do you think NIST conducted experiments to determine how the fireproofing was displaced by the plane impact? According to you since the terrorists flew planes into the towers therefore no further tests or experimentation was required since the terrorist attack itself was the experiment. That is an absoluletly absurd position my firend.

I said #5: avoiding the issue. The truth is you cannot provide one example when the total collapse of the twin towers was tested according to the scientific method.
Actually, the truth is that I told you it was unnecessary .
Hahahahahha – let me refresh your memory
I said You are arguing that it is NOT NECESSARY, that the scientific method is not applicable to the official hypothesis
Belz before I never said this. You are lying .
Belz after “i told you it was UNNECESSARY”
I said #6: a hypothesis is a rational explanation for a given phenomena see definition no.4 above dictionary.com. but my point is that the official explanation has not been proven by the scientific method.
You keep fighting that strawman
Hahahahha - now im fighting a strawman!!
A strawman argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position
(wikipedia)
Question: what is my opponents position????? Let me refresh his memory.
I said - do you accept that the burden of proof also rests on the official hypothesis?
No, for two reasons: a.) It is not a hypothesis.
b.) It has already been proven. So belz states that the official hypothesis has been proven.
I said - do you accept that to date the total collapse has not been proven through the scientifc method
No belz states on a second occassion that the official hypothesis has been proven by the sceintific method.

Now when i argue that - the official explanation has not been proven by the scientific method. I am fighting a strawman because this is a misrepresentation of Belz’s CURRENT position. Before he stated that the official hypothesis was proven by the scientific method. Now he states that its unnecessary!!

I said #7: first thing to notice here is that that Belz fails to provide just one example or experiment when the total collapse of the wtc was tested.
Also notice that he doesn't need to.
I said - do you accept that to date the total collapse has not been proven through the scientifc method
Belz before said No
Belz after - i dont need to provide one example or experiment when total collapse was tested.

i said - The problem is that none of these assumptions have been proven by the scientific method.
Please demonstrate the the Earth is spherical, Soul.
No need - It has already been proven
I said - Ok belz this is the last respeonse i am sending you on this particular issue. If you believe that the total collapse has been proven through the scientific method – and if what your saying is true – then i am positive you can present just one of the actual tests, experiments, and/or compuer modelling of the total collaspe of the twin towers. So its either put up or shut up!
What part of "doesn't need to" don't you understand ?
Hahahahahah –
What part of - you change you position like a comellian changes its colours - dont you undertsand???
Heres the deal: you stated clearly and definitely that the official hypothesis was proven by the scientific method. I then said provide one actual test, experiment, and/or computer modelling of the total collapse of the twin towers. Obviously if you were speaking truth you could have provided just one example. so I said either put up or shut up.
Amazingly you did neither!!!

Instead of providing just one example when the scientific method was applied to the total collapse a position you stated was the case – you CHANGED your story – now you state that tests, experiments, and/or computer modelling are UNNECESSARY. Which means by implication that

The official hypothesis has not been proven by the scientific method – which is what i was arguing from the outset.

Heres a tip, read what you said in your previous post before you write a new one.

thewholesoul

7th January 2008, 06:37 PM

So the planes were responsible for the initial collapse?

Is it your position then, the the buildings should have halted their collapse once they had begun? On what physical basis do you claim this? Do you have any calculations you could present us with?

according to the official hypothesis the planes were responsible to a large degree for the initial collapse. they were responsible for removing the fireproofing, for the fire, and because they removed the fireproofing the steel was exposed to the fires produced by the jet fuel in the planes - which led to the weakening of the core columns and the sagging of the floor trusses - which led to excess stress on the outer columns etc etc until the initial collapse occured.

so yes in relation to the twin towers - because tower 7 was not hit by a plane - the impact of the planes was to a significant extent responsible, according to the official hypothesis, for producing a chain of events which eventually resulted with the initial collapse.

my position - would question whether the plane crash would have led to the initial collapse. and that even if initial collapse had begun that it would not have resulted in a total collapse unless the resistance of the vertical structure was removed or cut by preplanted explosives or incendary devices.

in my post#1102 - you will find numerous links which provide the calculations and the physics that present the position i defend.

thewholesoul

8th January 2008, 12:23 AM

funk de fino

8th January 2008, 02:45 AM

So what was your source? How do you know for certain what kind of switiches were actually inside the elevator shaft of the twin towers? How do you know for certain that they were positioned inside the elevator shaft and that they were located in an exposed position relative to the descending jet fuel? Your claiming that you know that the switches in the towers did not have special safeguards – ok source that claim please instead of "describing" your occuaption.

There are rules and regulations about what equipment can be used in areas that can have explosive atmospoheres present continuously or for long persiods. Areas such as oil rigs, gas plants, refineries etc etc. Equipment in these areas must be designes so as not to produce a spark or heat that could ignite this atmosphere. If you want to see the rules and regulations regarding these regulations then go to the IECEx website and read all about it. Normal offices and houses and indeed most factories will not have explosive atmospheres at any time. Their equipment comes under different regulations. They do not have to have this limits on sparks and heat for ignition of explosive atmospheres. The switches, lighting and mains voltages in the Twin Towers would have been to the same standards as the ones in your home because they are normal office enviroments.

When I set up electrical circuits in Zone 1 areas on an offshore oil rig, I mostly use 4-20mA, 24 VDC systems. Very low current and volts so low power. If there is a failure and a spark is produced then the spark is is of insufficient power to cause ignition. If I want to use higher power circuits then I have to use other types of protection for the circuits such as pressurisation, explosion proof enclosures etc etc.

In the towers the electrical circuits would have been mostly 110 volts AC, up to 13 Amp,normal USA mains voltage for the office power. There would also have been industrial electric circuits for the lifts etc that could have been uo to 415VAC. There are no limits on power potentila of sparks because there is not explosive atmosphere present in normal circumstances.

Now at this point I will try to tell you again. You are barking at the wrong tree here. You are concentrating on the switches. Switches will only cause ignition in normal circumstances when made or switched. These were not the only ignition sources. Lamps or relays are just as likely to have been an ignition source. The flaming debri also. What you really should be thinking of is the fire triangle again. You have ignition sources. You have jet fuel. you haave oxygen. What will normally be the crucial factor in this situation ifs the combination of the jet fuel and the oxygen into the range of the LEL and th UEL. If this occurs then this is when the ignition will take place. Asd the thousands of gallons of jet fuel are cascading down the elevator shafts then this ratio is not correct therefore any ignition source it encounters is moot. Only when the fuel and air can mix in the correct ratio will the ignition occur. If you ask me, in my opinion, I would say there is more likely to have been an explosion in the lower levels than the upper.

If you have a dish with a flammable liquid in it and you set light to it and observe the flame, where is the burning occuring? Surface of the liquid or just above where the liquid and air has mixed? Do you understand the concept of flooding your motor car in an older style carb engine?

Another point you ignore is this – using your common sense, and expertise in light switches – explain to me how the flammable jet fuel travelled down 90+floors without igniting into a fireball. If indeed the light switches were the cause and were alined all the way down the elevator shaft then surely the jet fuel would have deflagrated before it reached B2-3 because it must have been in contact with many many “non-special” light switches??

Again I am not sayimng the switches are the cause just that they are one of many that could have caused. See above for the comment about correct ratio of fuel to oxygen for why it did not ignite. If you have a small flame burning and you take a bucket of petrol and dump the petrol on the flame the flame will be extinguished because you have added too much fuel to the triangle. If however you have the same flame and you bring it near the surface of the petrol in the same bucket it will ignite. This is due to the relationship between the Fire triangle and the LEL and UEL.

Imagine a house 10 storeys high and each floor had several non-special light switches. Unfortunately and by accident there was a gas leak on the 10th floor. However eventhough each floor had several non-special light switches the gas travelled all the way down to the ground floor and despite having come into contact with many non special light switches it suddenly explodes when it reached the basement floor.
I look forward to your response on that one.

Again. You are obsessing on switches. If the gas and air mixture was correct and there was an ignition source present it would ignite at the source of ignition. However I have already told you that normal switches create a spark when they are made or operated. In your experiment if the gas travelled down the floors and there was the correct ratio available on each floor of gas and oxygen then it would ignite when one of the switches was made. It would not matter which floor this was on it would occur at the switch when operated. If a switch was made on the lower floor then it would cause the the explosion there. If it was the top floor, it occur there. You are making the mnistake of concentrating on one aspect of the fire triangle and also ignoring LEL and UEL. Remember the fire triangle states that you must have Fuel, Oxygen and heat (spark) for a fire to occur. It does not state that if you have all three then you will definately have a fire because the fuel and air must be in the correct mixture to allow the ignition to occur. Too much fuel or too much oxygen and the ignition caannot occur. Please tell me you see this?

I said

Nice dodge. The point was how did it gets past all the present and capable ignition sources before it reached the basement?

see above

Common sense.

try using it

I am not forgeting the LEL and UEL. If the entire shaft possessed an explosive atmosphere and that explosive atmosphere was progressing downwards then one would expect that the explosive atmosphere would have exploded into a fireball before it reached the basement after it past and came into contact with numerous ignition sources.

Yes you are. If the entire shaft contained the correct explosive atmosphere then indeed the first source of ignition would have ignitied it. The thousands of gallons of jet fuel cascading down the shaft just after impact does not mean you have this correct atmosphere present all the way down the shaft. See the bucket of petrol experiments above.

Ok – your the expert and the teacher on this subject. Now imagine i am one of your students.

Sorry pal, you are not bright enough to be one of my students but i will play your game anyway. You will recieve an F though

I ask you, excuse me sir, but how did the jet fuel not ignite into a fireball before it reached B2-3 in both towers? It seems strange to me given that the elevator shafts were the only way the jet fuel had access to the basement, given that all the ignition sources where present within the elevator shaft, given they were all capable, and given there was an explosive atmosphere progressing downwards through the elevator– then how is it possible that the jet fuel did not deflagrate sooner? Everybody knows – even NIST - that a fireball did not travel down the elevator shaft from the impact zone?

I would tell you that there was not necessarily and explosive atmosphere travelling down the shaft at that point. I would carry out the bucket of petrol experiment (I would make you pay as petrol is very expensive here) and try again to reiterate the relationship between the LEL, UEL and the fire triangle.

would you sent me out of your classroom for that question? If you had already asked it before and continued to show a complete and utter failure to show that you could understand basic theories like these, then yes, I would throw you off anf inform your supervisor

Common sense experiments:
if you had a stream of jet fuel running along the road from point A to point B and you had a portable ignition source (flamming torch, a short cicuiting wire, etc) and you exposed the jet fuel to the ignition source starting at point A moving towards point B. I would expect that the jet fuel would ignite at point A, and that the probabilty of reaching point B would decrease as soon as one left point A.

This in different than what occured in the towers. You are correct in what would happen in your experiment because the flame or short circuit would ignite the fuel air vapour at the surface of the fuel on the road. It is possible however that if you shoved the flame into the fuel that you may, in fact, put the flame out. see the bucket experiment again for a more realistic and common sense experiment.

The same logic applies to jet fuel flowing downwards through a tunnel, funnel, or elevator.

No it does not. The fuel on an open road is different than fuel in an enclosed vessel. Also the fuel on the road is not in motion. It has started to create the fuel ratio mixture at the surface already.

Jet fuel vapour experiment:
if you left the gas on at home, and when you entered the room and switched on the lights i would expect that the explosive atmosphere would ignite at the source of ignition .

Correct

If you had the same room full of gas, and instead of switching on a stationary light switch you flicked a match across the room. Will the match ignite at the moment of contact? will it travel half way across the room before ignition? or will it reach the far end of the room before it ignites the explosive atmosphere?

It will ignite as you are striking it and you will be blown to smithereens. Bot these experiments will depend on the correct fuel/air mixture again. If these are not coirrect then the explosion will not occur in either case.

Therefore your experiments are duff for consideration in the case of the towers.

If you have an elevator shaft 100 metres and an explosive atmosphere was travelling downwards from point A to point B while contacting "non-special" light switches every 10 metres along the way. Would you expect the explosive atmosphere to ignite at the first light switch, the 2nd and so forth. Or would you expect the explosive atmosphere to reach the 10th switch before it ignited?

I have already told you that it was not an explosive atmosphere that was travelling it was the fuel in liquid form. the expolosive atmosphere had not been formed yet.

Try the same experiment as above except throw a flamming torch and debris into the explosive atmosphere and observe if the mixture can reach point B before deflagrating.

a repeat of your earlier duff experiment

I am saying that experiments are always possible with enough imagination and resources.

I agree it is not necessary that we discover the exact source of ignition – but i am saying that experiments could be performed to prove how an explosive atmosphere in contact with multiple and capable ignition sources can pass over these multiple ignition sources from point A to point B without exploding. I contend itsumpossible !!

Again you completely miss the whole point because you do not have the technical knowledge.

Thats a strong claim. Now if indeed it is impossible and cannot be proven by experimentation then we return to the question – what caused the “explosion” in the basement? An explosion some witnesses who were actually there in the basement that day, claimed was a bomb!!

ell we know what the evidence is for the jet fuel theory. You have yet to show any evidence for any other theory.

funk de fino

8th January 2008, 02:47 AM

agreed.

So this is a retraction of youir earlier claims?

I Am He

8th January 2008, 03:08 AM

Pray tell Soul, what credentials do you have? You've been making claims and when corrected you just make the same claims again like you know all the sciences involved. What degrees do you hold? What branch of science are you involved with? What degree in engineering do you hold? None, now how did I know that??

Oh? About paying for tests, how about you asking your Government to chip in? Surely some people from your country must have been victims of that attack too. But seeing that your Government isn't calling for new test might be saying something to you. But for some strange reason you can't hear it.

I Am He

Norseman

8th January 2008, 03:14 AM

hey guys - i know i promised to get into the evidence supporting the CD hypothesis but i think i cracked the official hypothesis. if i am right and the following cannot be possibly explained away - then that means i have eliminated the flamming debris, lighting and light switches as possible explanations behind the explosion in the basement. previously i eliminated the "plane impact" explanation presented by totovader. and the "elevator impact" is easy to refute. anyways....

Explosive atmosphere = fire triangle = fuel, oxygen, ignition source

We know that when the three conditions of the fire triangle are met between kerosene, air, and an ignition source, deflagration occurs.

When the plane hit the north tower we saw a fuel deflagration.

NIST agrees no fireball travelled down the elevator shaft from impact zone

NIST agrees that jet fuel travelled down elevator shaft from impact zone

Floor 90-80 = jet fuel vapor+flamming deris+other ignition sources = no deflagration
Floor 80-70 = jet fuel vapor+flamming deris+other ignition sources = no deflagration
Floor 70-60 = jet fuel vapor+flamming deris+other ignition sources = no deflagration
Floor 60-50 = jet fuel vapor+flamming deris+other ignition sources = no deflagration
Floor 50-40 = jet fuel vapor+flamming deris+other ignition sources = no deflagration
Floor 40-30 = jet fuel vapor+flamming deris+other ignition sources = no deflagration
Floor 30-20 = jet fuel vapor+flamming deris+other ignition sources = no deflagration
Floor 20-10 = jet fuel vapor+flamming deris+other ignition sources = no deflagration
Floor 10-0 = jet fuel vapor+flamming deris+other ignition sources = no deflagration

B2 - 3 = DEFLAGRATION!!!! several witnesses thought they heard a bomb!!

B3 – 6 = jet fuel + other ignition sources = no deflagration

How is this POSSIBLE? Does anyone in this room have the expertise or imagination to explain away this problem in a half-way convincing manner?

This is completely wrong thewholesoul. NIST does not agree with you. NIST has determined through their own interviews with survivors that fireballs erupted from the elevator shafts on numerous floors throughout WTC 1. You should read pages 75-78 and look at figure 6-1 on page 81 in NIST NCSTAR 1-7: Occupant Behavior, Egress, and Emergency Communication (http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-7.pdf)

You should also read the second last paragraph on page 80 in NIST NCSTAR 1-5A: Visual Evidence, Damage Estimates, and Timeline Analysis (Chapters 1-8) (http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_1-8.pdf).

In addition to this we have numerous accounts from the media telling us the same thing. This also something Gravy tried to point out to you several pages ago if I remember correctly, while you ignored it.

It is also time to point out to you that the jet fuel going down the elevator shafts with very great certainty did not need to find any ignition sources on the lower levels, because it kept burning all the way down, but was oxygen starved as I have explained here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2927286#post2927286).

You have cracked nothing, you have only shown your own incredulity in relation to the consequences of Flight 11's impact inside WTC 1. You should either admit that you were wrong, or if that is to hard on you, you should just leave this thread quietly.

funk de fino

8th January 2008, 03:16 AM

Look if want to degenerate the debate into jones is a liar and 911 peer reviewed papers are not peer reviewed – fine.
But i disagree with you with sugar on top.

disgaree all you want but they are not correctly peer reviwed papers.

Wikipedia experts? JONES experts for reviewing papers are who exactly?

Besides on what authority, may i ask, do you claim that their papers are not peer reviewed?

Scientific community. Give me a list of their reviewers. Now define a peer reviewed scientific paper?

Yes they were peer reviewed which means the statement above was correct and the site was telling the truth.

So, you claim WTC7 collpased in 6.5 secs?

You see your tactic. You say the peer reviewed papers of 911 scholars are not peer reviewed. Then you call the scholars liars. Then you pull out calculations supposting the official hypothesis and claim i have to refute these fine gentlemen who are not liars and have presented peer review papers. Give me a break.

You have clamied total collpase is not inevitable. There are many papers out there which are properly peer reviewed that show that this is in fact true. You have to disprove them. You have to show they are wrong. If somone fron the truthers at JONES writes a paper to try and do this then they have to put it out into the scientific community to be poeer reviewed not just get some of their mates at the same online site to say its OK.

The truth is mathematical calculations on a page are not the same thing as an actual experiment – why – because the former are theoretical by nature.
That is why i suggest the best way and perhaps the only way to prove whose calculations are right is through testing, experimentation, and/or computer modelling.
So you can drop waving your calculations supporting the official hypothesis as if to say they the official hypothesis is thereby proven by the scientific method.
I said

Do you think exepriments on progressive collaapse have never been carried out? Do you not think there is a knowledge base out there already about progressive collapse? If you want tp pay for a mock up of the Towers so that they can carry out experiments to satify you, then by all means go ahead. The problem is, the real experts, who know about these things, are happy with the claculation because they undertsand them. You do not.

You completely IGNORED the other half – how conveniant. Lets just repeat it then shall we.
Is - “total collapse was inevitable post inital collapse” - A CLAIM?
Is - “total collapse resulted from fire and gravity” – A CLAIM?
The above claims have to date not been tested. thats a fact you can accept or not. Based on this fact i can claim, confidently, that the official hypothesis has not been proven by the scientific method – and i defy anyone in this forum to produce any test, experiment, and/or computer model that proves TOTAL COLLAPSE of the twin towers was caused by fire and gravity.
So that the “stating a claim” covered, as for the “new theory”.

It has been claimed and proved in peer reviewed papers that the towers collapsed due to the terrosists attacks that day. There is no evidence for any other theory. Bring some we can look at it.

Controlled demolition of a steel framed skyscraper is NOT A NEW THEORY OR PHENOMENA – thats a fact you accept or not.

Secret controlled demolition, using thermite, on a skyscraper that had been extensively damaged by planes flying into them at approx 500 mph, with a load of fuel causing loss of fireproofing and unfought fires, with no distinct loud demoliton explosions noises, then vidoes subsequently show that the cores stood longer than the rest of the building, is indeed a new theory skip

Total collapse of a steel framed skyscraper IS A NEW PHENOMENA – thats another fact you already accepted

Not a new theory of collpase of steel framed buildings though is it? there is one right outside my window. Steel framed warehouse, caughtv fire on 22nd december. Contained normal houslehold and office equipment. Steel frame collapsed with only the weight of roofing sheets on top of it.

The steel frame of the windsor tower would have completely collapsed had it not been for the concrete core holding it up.

Now when you have a new phenomena your are going to need a new theory, or hypothesis to explain that phenomena. Do you agree?
Or perhaps you can provide an example of one new phenomena that did not require a new theory or hypothesis.

Steel frame buildings collapsing due to fire is not a new theory.

Like i said before – the official hypothesis remains unproven – and the burden of proof my friend rests on anyone proposing a new theory or stating a claim. That means that advocates of CD hypothesis AND advocates of the official hypotehsis have the burden of proof.

Wrong again.

I will concede however in light of another post you sent that may be i was wrong to say that progressive and global collapse was invented terminology. I would sure like if NIST provided their definition of a “global collapse” given that use the term often enough.

Good, you are ahead of the game you have admitted a mistake

What is controlled demoltion – it is basically when explosives or incendary devices are used to to cut the vertical support structure so a global collapse can occur.
Now perhaps the explosions did not sound like “conventional” demolition explosives that you are familiar with. That is not to say that explosives or secondary devices did not produce the explosions heard by witnessess there that day.

A new theory then. A CD that does not sound like a CD? What was that about burden of proof? And new theories?

Why would they use incendiarys in a CD? You do know what an incendiary is dont you? I know of one guy who carried out demolitions on buildings withour explosives and purposely drtopped them out of their footprint. You will have to show me who else uses incendiares to carry out CD.

Ok so they “thought” they heard and saw explosives like in a demolition. But you “know” that it was not explosives. so tell me what did they “actually” hear and see. Or are you going to provide some more speculation?

You want me to speculate on their specualtions? Is that scientific?

I would prefer if you presented your case. Explain why you think the speed of sound removes the possibility that the sound of explosions were recorded.

not faster than the speed of sound.

How long before collapse were these sounds?

Did you go to implosionworld and look at the videos? Did they look and sound like the towers that day? Why do we not see and hear the same things in all the videos that we have all watched thousands of times from that day?

funk de fino

8th January 2008, 03:46 AM

Explosive atmosphere = fire triangle = fuel, oxygen, ignition source

We know that when the three conditions of the fire triangle are met between kerosene, air, and an ignition source, deflagration occurs.

When the plane hit the north tower we saw a fuel deflagration.

Again, if you were in my class you would be kicked out and reported to your supervisor

try your equation again.

Fire Triangle = fuel, oxygen, heat

Explosive atmosphere = Fuel and oxygen ratio being between the LEL and UEL for that fuel type

To use the Fire triangle correctly you must always take note that you can have all the elements in the fire triangle but you will not always have a fire. This is mostly with liquid or gaseous fires and to a lesser extent solids.

You are assuming that if we have all the elements present them we have to have a fire. A fire is a not certainty but it is possible.

Now, I do not claim to know the exact specifics of what happened that day as far as the explosions, fireballs etc, what I am trying to show you is that there are numerous explanations for what happened and none of them are out of the oridinary or new theories or miraculous happenings. I am trying to show you that you do not understand basic theories which is why you are struggling here and unable to understand the things that happened on that day.

Belz...

8th January 2008, 05:56 AM

hahahahahahah - i knew you were a fellow gringo. hey listen you score a half-a-point for that victory.

And you get NOTHING because you're apparently unable to connect dots that are so obvious. There was only one explanation.

if the reason that YOUR taxes could finance investiagtions in america is because you are from canada you win. enjoy it while it lasts my firend.

That makes no sense, whatsoever. What the hell did it mean ?

Belz...

8th January 2008, 06:01 AM

Thats the first time you said “default theory”.

And ?

I want the CD hypothesis to be tested through experimentation and/or computer modelling. Alas only the official hypothesis has ever been investigated and if i suggested that the CD hypothesis be investigated you would say no it should not be.

Are you saying that the official theory was investigated ?

And please stop using the word "hypothesis". It makes you look like a fool.

Your position is an example of complete double speak: you claim that truthers must prove their theory yet you would object to it being officially investigated and tested.

I don't object to it: I'm saying it already WAS. See how bad you are at reading ?

in other words truthers have the burden of proof yet truthers are denied the means to prove their hypothesis.

You're not denied. You can fund a private investigation at any time.

Of course experimentation is an observed phenomena – but terrorists crashing planes into the towers WAS NOT AN EXPERIMENT.

Perhaps not in the strictest sense of the word, but it was a spectacular demonstration of why buildings should be built as tough as possible. Gravity is relentless.

Hahahahahha – let me refresh your memory
I said
Belz before
Belz after “i told you it was UNNECESSARY”
I said

Hahahahha - now im fighting a strawman!!

(wikipedia)
Question: what is my opponents position????? Let me refresh his memory.
I said -
So belz states that the official hypothesis has been proven.
I said -
belz states on a second occassion that the official hypothesis has been proven by the sceintific method.

Now when i argue that - the official explanation has not been proven by the scientific method. I am fighting a strawman because this is a misrepresentation of Belz’s CURRENT position. Before he stated that the official hypothesis was proven by the scientific method. Now he states that its unnecessary!!

I said

I said -
Belz before said
Belz after - i dont need to provide one example or experiment when total collapse was tested.

i said -

No need - It has already been proven
I said -

Hahahahahah –
What part of - you change you position like a comellian changes its colours - dont you undertsand???

Once you're done masturbating your own ego, can we proceed ?

Heres the deal: you stated clearly and definitely that the official hypothesis was proven by the scientific method.

Nope.

Amazingly you did neither!!!

There's nothing amazing about it. I said that everybody in the industry knows what happens when a mass of this size comes crashing down.

I've been saying this since the beginning.

twinstead

8th January 2008, 06:10 AM

The problem is that the wrong people are clamoring for a new investigation to test for CD--people who don't know what they are talking about.

There's are some actual experts-Quintiere comes to mind--who want a new investigation, but this has nothing to do with CD or an inside job. If he were to ever get his new investigation, the results of it would most assuredly be poo pooed by truthers because it also wouldn't prove their 'inside job'.

As long as the only cry for an investigation that concentrates on CD comes from those who have an agenda and from those who don't have a clue about what they are talking about, it will never happen.

There's the key. Truthers, find some people, some REAL experts within the system who's combined voices couldn't be ignored. You obviously think your evidence is compelling enough to do this otherwise you wouldn't be making fools of yourself trying to get your message out.

Step away from YouTube and the Internet. Publish papers in respected journals. And for God's sake Dump Jones, Wood et all NOW before it's too late.

thewholesoul

8th January 2008, 07:40 AM

So this is a retraction of youir earlier claims?

it looks like i may have to. it seems that the terms might not have been invented for the first time post 911. although NIST does not define what global collapse means thus there may still be an opening if they define it differently from the defintions previously.

however if i were to make a rebuttal - i would argue that 911 exhibited a new phenomena i.e. first stell framed skyscraper to exhibit a total collapse due to fire and gravity - thus a new phenomena requires a new theory, or hypothesis to explain this phenomena.

but this aspect of our dialogue was about the burden of proof.
i am awaiting your response as to why - total collapse was inevitable post initial collapse - is NOT A CLAIM. a claim i might add had NOT been proven by the scientific method.

i still maintain the positon that the burden of proof rests on those who state claims or new theory's. contolled demolition is not a new theory. and if the burden of proof rests with us - then you should support an OFFICIAL investigation into the CD hypothesis. if i had to choose with was a new theory between the official hypothesis and contolled demolition i would say the former based on the fact that the phenomena which occured on 911 never happened previously to a steel framed skyscraper.

thewholesoul

8th January 2008, 07:44 AM

And please stop using the word "hypothesis". It makes you look like a fool.

ok i look foolish.

why dont you present your REASONS why the official hypothesis is NOT a hypothesis and we will judge who looks foolish at a later point.

Belz...

8th January 2008, 08:03 AM

my position - would question whether the plane crash would have led to the initial collapse.

10,000 pages seem to show that it should have.

and that even if initial collapse had begun that it would not have resulted in a total collapse unless the resistance of the vertical structure was removed or cut by preplanted explosives or incendary devices.

Soul, when are you going to realise that only one floor at a time needed to fail ?

i know i promised to get into the evidence supporting the CD hypothesis but i think i cracked the official hypothesis.

How ? By continual use of arguments from incredulity ?

Dave Rogers

8th January 2008, 08:03 AM

however if i were to make a rebuttal - i would argue that 911 exhibited a new phenomena i.e. first stell framed skyscraper to exhibit a total collapse due to fire and gravity - thus a new phenomena requires a new theory, or hypothesis to explain this phenomena.

Would you please, please try to remember that 9-11 was the first (and second) time a steel framed building had been hit by a jet airliner, followed by the first time a steel framed building had been hit by debris from a collapsing steel framed building more than twice as high? You're arguing that there's something suspicious about unique consequences resulting from unique circumstances, which is patently absurd.

i still maintain the positon that the burden of proof rests on those who state claims or new theory's. contolled demolition is not a new theory. and if the burden of proof rests with us - then you should support an OFFICIAL investigation into the CD hypothesis. if i had to choose with was a new theory between the official hypothesis and contolled demolition i would say the former based on the fact that the phenomena which occured on 911 never happened previously to a steel framed skyscraper.

Your position here is absurd too. Controlled demolition of a steel framed structure without any prior weakening, with the charges having been installed in secret, with the sole point of collapse initiation more than half way up the structure, and using charges which were able to withstand a jet fuel deflagration and an hour's exposure to a major building contents fire, is such a radically new hypothesis that prior to 9-11 it had never been so much as hinted at. In that respect, it's a radically new theory, and one for which there is not a shred of plausible evidence.

Dave

Belz...

8th January 2008, 08:04 AM

ok i look foolish.

why dont you present your REASONS why the official hypothesis is NOT a hypothesis and we will judge who looks foolish at a later point.

Are you still playing that stupid game of yours ?

And when are you going to adress my points about your youtube videos ?

beachnut

8th January 2008, 08:21 AM

ok i look foolish.

why dont you present your REASONS why the official hypothesis is NOT a hypothesis and we will judge who looks foolish at a later point.
There is no hypothesis for 11 hitting WTC, 175 hitting WTC, 77 hitting Pentagon, 93 smashing into the ground in PA. Prove me wrong and you win a Pulitzer Prize! No prize for you, I am right.

Next, impact and fire brought down each WTC1, 2, 7. There is no hypothesis on this, it is fact proven on 9/11. If you can prove me wrong once again you get a Pulitzer Prize, but you can not prove me wrong. Go ahead try.

Any other doubts on this. Oh, 19 terrorist took 4 jets and used them as weapons on 9/11. Prove this wrong, prove me wrong, and again you get a Pulitzer Prize. Go ahead, prove me wrong.

You have no facts, you have no idea what happen on 9/11. There is only what happen on 9/11. Your posts have presented no facts, your ideas are failed 9/11 truth BS. There is no Pulitzer Prize for your non smoking gun zero ideas on 9/11. Just failed hearsay talk from 9/11 truth the false information movement pushing ideas for no good reason.

What happen on 9/11 is not a hypothesis; Prove me wrong and you have a prize. So far you have failed. You have to come up and prove it wrong. You can't. You can't even get started.

CD is a nut case idea only for the weak minded fools who buy the ideas of 9/11 truth. If you can prove CD you get a Pulitzer Prize, you can't, so you don't get the prize. You must come up with evidence; since fire did in the WTC, you will fail to find evidence, because there was no CD. Only lies come from 9/11 truth; please produce some facts, or keep the lies to yourself.

thewholesoul

8th January 2008, 08:27 AM

If you ask me, in my opinion, I would say there is more likely to have been an explosion in the lower levels than the upper.

Why is it more likely in your opinion?

funk de fino

8th January 2008, 08:30 AM

it looks like i may have to. it seems that the terms might not have been invented for the first time post 911. although NIST does not define what global collapse means thus there may still be an opening if they define it differently from the defintions previously.

however if i were to make a rebuttal - i would argue that 911 exhibited a new phenomena i.e. first stell framed skyscraper to exhibit a total collapse due to fire and gravity - thus a new phenomena requires a new theory, or hypothesis to explain this phenomena.

but this aspect of our dialogue was about the burden of proof.
i am awaiting your response as to why - total collapse was inevitable post initial collapse - is NOT A CLAIM. a claim i might add had NOT been proven by the scientific method.

i still maintain the positon that the burden of proof rests on those who state claims or new theory's. contolled demolition is not a new theory. and if the burden of proof rests with us - then you should support an OFFICIAL investigation into the CD hypothesis. if i had to choose with was a new theory between the official hypothesis and contolled demolition i would say the former based on the fact that the phenomena which occured on 911 never happened previously to a steel framed skyscraper.

You define gobal collapse then?

Total collapse was ineveitable because the rest of the building could not resist the force of the upper part of the building dropping on it. The calculations are in plenty peer reviewed papers. You must refute them. I do not have to prove them as they have already been proven and reviewed. get it?

It is not a new theory that steel framed buildings collapse due to damage by fire and the effects of gravity no matter what way you try to spin it. Just because these were the largest and they all occured on the same day does not mean this is a new theory.

funk de fino

8th January 2008, 08:47 AM

Why is it more likely in your opinion?

If we look at it from a point of view of the fuel cascades down the shaft in liquid form, thousands of gallons of it. This is a theoretical model and in no way is supposed to say exactly what happened on the day.

When the fuel reaches the bottom of the shaft it spreads out, pools and starts to evaporate into the local oxygen. Remember the lift shaft are not hermetically sealed because in the report and interviews some people witnessed flames coming out of the lift shafts.

As it is travelling down the shaft the fuel is above the UEL for the available ignition sources and will not ignite. In the bottom as it starts to pool, spread out and find its way into other areas (like your fuel on the road experiment) an ignition source ignites it. Witness on the scene smelled fuel on a lot of levels including the lobby areas.

If we look at it from the view of what happened on that day the variables are too great to say for certain what exactly set it off, how many events and exactly where for each event. Witnesses and reports seem to suggest the flaming fireball travelled down the shaft but there could also have been other events in the basement. As norseman has pointed out there could have been backdraft situations.

Experimentation will make it no clearer for us. If you think so you are in fantasyland.

thewholesoul

8th January 2008, 11:06 AM

good answer.

and i must say i appreciate your patience.

If we look at it from a point of view of the fuel cascades down the shaft in liquid form, thousands of gallons of it.

When the fuel reaches the bottom of the shaft it spreads out, pools and starts to evaporate into the local oxygen.

so your saying evaporation only occured when the liquid reached and pooled at the base of elevator - not when it travelled down the side walls of the elevator?

Remember the lift shaft are not hermetically sealed because in the report and interviews some people witnessed flames coming out of the lift shafts.

after the explosion in basement

In the bottom as it starts to pool, spread out and find its way into other areas (like your fuel on the road experiment) an ignition source ignites it.

no deflragtion occured on B6-5 despite the presence of multiple and capable ignition sources.

Witness on the scene smelled fuel on a lot of levels including the lobby areas.

the lobby area was above B2-3. Yet B6 was were the fuel started to evapourate (the only place?) according to you. yet mike pecaro B6 smelled kerosene after explosion was heard. philip morelli did not report the smell of kerosene although he was standing beside the freight elevator where the fuel vapor must have past to reach the B2-3 area above.

given that witnesses smelled kerosene on various floors is evidence that fuel evaporated not just in the B6 level as you suggested.

As norseman has pointed out there could have been backdraft situations.

what #post of norseman

thewholesoul

8th January 2008, 12:21 PM

disgaree all you want but they are not correctly peer reviwed papers.

experts? JONES experts for reviewing papers are who exactly?

because you do not know which experts reviewed his paper does not mean that no experts reviewed his papers.

Scientific community. Give me a list of their reviewers. Now define a peer reviewed scientific paper?

you never heard of blind reviews? that is when the names are not disclosed. that is the normal procedure in science. steven jones does assure us that his work was reviewed by peers with phd's.

You have clamied total collpase is not inevitable. There are many papers out there which are properly peer reviewed that show that this is in fact true. You have to disprove them. You have to show they are wrong. If somone fron the truthers at JONES writes a paper to try and do this then they have to put it out into the scientific community to be peer reviewed not just get some of their mates at the same online site to say its OK.

again you have provided no reason why scholars peer reviewed papers are not peer reviewed. you have only managed to express bias.

Do you think exepriments on progressive collaapse have never been carried out? Do you not think there is a knowledge base out there already about progressive collapse?

no, i know experimnets with large or partial scale models and/or compuer models have not been conducted on the total collapse post initial collapse of the twin towers. heres a challenge:

if you can name one test, experiment, and/or computer model that was conducted on the total collapse of the twin towers post initial collaspe - you can produce it right?

Secret controlled demolition, using thermite, on a skyscraper that had been extensively damaged by planes flying into them at approx 500 mph, with a load of fuel causing loss of fireproofing and unfought fires, with no distinct loud demoliton explosions noises, then vidoes subsequently show that the cores stood longer than the rest of the building, is indeed a new theory skip

do you accept the fact that no steel framed skyscraper in the history of steel framed skyscraper has collapsed due to fire and gravity prior to 911. that this phenomena has predominantly occured due to controlled demolition?

do you accept the fact that eight or ten of the features of the collapses are seen in controlled demolitions and nowhere else.?

Sudden onset – straight down progress – sliced steel – demolition rings – molten steel – pulverization of concrete and other materials/thick dust clouds – almost free fall speed – total collapse – horizontal ejections – sounds produced by explosions

Not a new theory of collpase of steel framed buildings though is it? there is one right outside my window. Steel framed warehouse, caught fire on 22nd december. Contained normal houslehold and office equipment. Steel frame collapsed with only the weight of roofing sheets on top of it.

steel framed skyscraper - yes.

did the example you allude to exhibit any features only seen in controlled demolition?

The steel frame of the windsor tower would have completely collapsed had it not been for the concrete core holding it up..

so the concrete did get pulverized? so the structure didnt totally collapse? how long did the windsor tower burn - 24 hours or something? i fail to see your point of comparison.

Steel frame buildings collapsing due to fire is not a new theory...

demolition of steel framed buildings is not a new theory either.

did the steel frame buildings aforementioned exhibit any features of a contolled demolition as did the buildings on 911?

Good, you are ahead of the game you have admitted a mistake...

i have no problem whatsoever admitting mistakes. i wonder would you have the same attitude?

A new theory then. A CD that does not sound like a CD? What was that about burden of proof? And new theories?...

what about the "stating a claim" element in relation to burden of proof¿?
- total collapse was inevitable post initial collapse -

you admit that is a claim, right?

do you admit that this claim has not been proven by the scientific method?

if you can provide one example of testing, experimentation, and/or computer modelling of the total collapse post initial collaspe that is the only way - the only way - you can refute my assertion above.

do you accept that theoretical calculations are not the same thing as actual experimentation?

You want me to speculate on their specualtions? Is that scientific?

no its not scientific but i would like you to sepcualte on individual testimony who claimed to see and hear something akin to explosives used in demolition. do you have a rational explanation?

How long before collapse were these sounds?

get to your point.

Did you go to implosionworld and look at the videos? Did they look and sound like the towers that day? Why do we not see and hear the same things in all the videos that we have all watched thousands of times from that day?

where exactly do i go in implosion world to watch teh videos?

in the testimony of individuals i provided they claimed that they heard and saw explosions like in demolition just before the south collapsed.

so address the testimony. http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192
testimony also claim that the ground started shaking BEFORE the collapse
fire patrolman Paul Curran. He was standing near it, he said, when ?all of a sudden the ground just started shaking. It felt like a train was running under my feet. . . . The next thing we know, we look up and the tower is collapsing.?

medical technician Lonnie Penn, who said that just before the collapse of the south tower: ?I felt the ground shake, I turned around and ran for my life. I made it as far as the Financial Center when the collapse happened.?

Lieutenant Bradley Mann of the fire department, one of the people to witness both collapses, described shaking prior to each of them. "Shortly before the first tower came down,? he said, ?I remember feeling the ground shaking. I heard a terrible noise, and then debris just started flying everywhere. People started running." Then, after they had returned to the area, he said, ?we basically had the same thing: The ground shook again, and we heard another terrible noise and the next thing we knew the second tower was coming down."

so we have people who saw flashes, heard explosions, and felt the ground shaking before the towers collapase. what rational explanation/specualtion do you have?

Norseman

8th January 2008, 05:25 PM

what #post of norseman

This post:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3314548#post3314548
Just one page back.

Norseman

8th January 2008, 06:09 PM

so address the testimony. http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192
testimony also claim that the ground started shaking BEFORE the collapse
fire patrolman Paul Curran. He was standing near it, he said, when ?all of a sudden the ground just started shaking. It felt like a train was running under my feet. . . . The next thing we know, we look up and the tower is collapsing.?

You do notice that he feels the ground shaking, then he looks up and sees the the tower collapsing. In other words the building was already collapsing when he felt the ground shaking. He felt the vibrations from the upper block impacting and destroying the lower block, these vibrations were transfered through structure down to the ground. Vibrations travel trough steel faster than air, therefor the ground will shake before they can hear the collapse. The same line of reasoning goes for the other witnesses to.

Gravy

8th January 2008, 06:15 PM

I can't believe people are still responding to this deliberately ignorant person.

funk de fino

9th January 2008, 02:34 AM

good answer.

and i must say i appreciate your patience.

so your saying evaporation only occured when the liquid reached and pooled at the base of elevator - not when it travelled down the side walls of the elevator?

after the explosion in basement

no deflragtion occured on B6-5 despite the presence of multiple and capable ignition sources.

the lobby area was above B2-3. Yet B6 was were the fuel started to evapourate (the only place?) according to you. yet mike pecaro B6 smelled kerosene after explosion was heard. philip morelli did not report the smell of kerosene although he was standing beside the freight elevator where the fuel vapor must have past to reach the B2-3 area above.

given that witnesses smelled kerosene on various floors is evidence that fuel evaporated not just in the B6 level as you suggested.

what #post of norseman

You missed out a very important part of my post. I think this was deliberate and completely changes the post and your answers to it. I have tried as hard as I can to make you understand UEL/LEL and fire theory but you are consisitently making the same mistakes.

Because of your editing of my post I will not reply to this post. There is no point as it proves you still do not understand what I have been showing you

funk de fino

9th January 2008, 03:32 AM

because you do not know which experts reviewed his paper does not mean that no experts reviewed his papers.

Who peer reviewed the papers? What experts did they send their papers to so it could be peer reviewed? I'll give you a clue? It was to other members of staff on the journal (website)

you never heard of blind reviews? that is when the names are not disclosed. that is the normal procedure in science. steven jones does assure us that his work was reviewed by peers with phd's.

Now you are making things up to help Jones. Why would you want a blind peer review? What is there to hide? I thought it was a quest for the truth?

PHD's in what? That is the important part of your statement. If you write a paper on the collapse of the towers is it OK for someone with a PHD in sociology to peer review it?

Peer review is the evaluation of creative work or performance by other people in the same field in order to maintain or enhance the quality of the work or performance in that field.

It is based on the concept that a larger and more diverse group of people will usually find more weaknesses and errors in a work or performance and will be able to make a more impartial evaluation of it than will just the person or group responsible for creating the work or performance.

Peer review utilizes the independence, and in some cases the anonymity, of the reviewers in order to discourage cronyism (i.e., favoritism shown to relatives and friends) and obtain an unbiased evaluation. Typically, the reviewers are not selected from among the close colleagues, relatives or friends of the creator or performer of the work, and potential reviewers are required to disclose of any conflicts of interest.

again you have provided no reason why scholars peer reviewed papers are not peer reviewed. you have only managed to express bias.

See above. I am not biased. I am not american. Why would I be biased?

no, i know experimnets with large or partial scale models and/or compuer models have not been conducted on the total collapse post initial collapse of the twin towers. heres a challenge:

That is not what I said was it? I said - have tests/experiments been carried out for progressive collapse? I did not mention the towers, now who is showing bias? I meant in general. Do you think there have never been tests carried out for progressive collpase by interested parties before and after 911? There are no studies or experiments? No knowledge base on this phenomena?

I repeat again> that site says the WTC7 collapsed in 6.5 secs. Do you agree with this claim? If so why?

if you can name one test, experiment, and/or computer model that was conducted on the total collapse of the twin towers post initial collaspe - you can produce it right?

See above

do you accept the fact that no steel framed skyscraper in the history of steel framed skyscraper has collapsed due to fire and gravity prior to 911. that this phenomena has predominantly occured due to controlled demolition?

Do you agree that steel frame buildings can collpse due to fire damage and the effects of gravity? If so why would a steel framed skyscraper not be expected to also?

do you accept the fact that eight or ten of the features of the collapses are seen in controlled demolitions and nowhere else.?

No I do not accept it. The Towers look nothing like a CD. I will go through your claims explaining why

Sudden onset – straight down progress – sliced steel – demolition rings – molten steel – pulverization of concrete and other materials/thick dust clouds – almost free fall speed – total collapse – horizontal ejections – sounds produced by explosions

They fell how many minutes after you are claiming witnesses heard bombs in the basement? Is this sudden? One moment you are claiming the explosions were at the point of aircraft impact and then the next you quotemine witness to say it happened just before collapse. Make your mind up.

Straight down but a lot of debri thrown very far from the building. Unlike a CD

Sliced steel was from the clean up process afterward. Show me the same sliced steel from any CD event you care to find.

Demolition rings?? WTF?

No molten steel was found or reported. Now show me molten steel at another CD event.

Thick dust clouds - give you that but do you think that there should have been no dust?

How close to free fall?

Are you trying to say that only buildings that have CD can totally collapse?

The ones in CD are caused by demolition charges and are very loud. In all videos of the collapse I do not hear the sound from these charges.

Show me a real video just before the collpase and during the collapse that has the sounds of these demolition charges.

steel framed skyscraper - yes.

Steel framed buildings being damaged and collapsing due to fire and the effect of gravity is not a new theory. What difference does it being a skyscraper make?

did the example you allude to exhibit any features only seen in controlled demolition?

No, but then again neither did your examples.

so the concrete did get pulverized? so the structure didnt totally collapse? how long did the windsor tower burn - 24 hours or something? i fail to see your point of comparison.

The building was a different design. The core stood but the steel frame around it collapsed. If the building had been the same design as the towers it would gave collapsed.

demolition of steel framed buildings is not a new theory either.

In the manner you are trying to claim it is a new theory. How many CD on steel frame buildings can you show me where the demolition charges go off 50 mins before the collapse? (or during it with silent charges depending on what claim you are making this second)

did the steel frame buildings aforementioned exhibit any features of a contolled demolition as did the buildings on 911?

See above. Denied.

i have no problem whatsoever admitting mistakes. i wonder would you have the same attitude?

Show me one I will admit it. Even a spelling mistake would do, I am man enough to fess up..

what about the "stating a claim" element in relation to burden of proof¿?
- total collapse was inevitable post initial collapse -

you admit that is a claim, right?

do you admit that this claim has not been proven by the scientific method?
This is a claim based on previous knowledge, building drawings and specifications,calculations, laws of physics, observation, witness testimonies, video records and photographic records. It is a claim verified by many scientists and engineers worldwide. You have a few kooks on a website oublishing woo papers without subjecting thgem to peer review in the correct manner who diagree. I know who I would side with on this one (from a critical thinking point of view of course).

There is no need for experimentation on a scale you would like and it is unfeasible anyway. You are more than welcome to try and raise the money to get someone to try for you.

if you can provide one example of testing, experimentation, and/or computer modelling of the total collapse post initial collaspe that is the only way - the only way - you can refute my assertion above.

I refute it by saying the experimentation is not needed.

do you accept that theoretical calculations are not the same thing as actual experimentation?

Yes. Does this mean computer models are no longer vaild then? that is what computer do. They carry out calculations using binary.

no its not scientific but i would like you to sepcualte on individual testimony who claimed to see and hear something akin to explosives used in demolition. do you have a rational explanation?

see norsemans explanation of quote 1, thats about the jist of it

get to your point.

You would only miss it

where exactly do i go in implosion world to watch teh videos?

I already showed you where. Do I really need to point it out again. Can you not even search one site for a page of videos? Great researcher you are eh?

in the testimony of individuals i provided they claimed that they heard and saw explosions like in demolition just before the south collapsed.

Reread their testimonies and see how this contradicts some of your other claims

so address the testimony. http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192
testimony also claim that the ground started shaking BEFORE the collapse
fire patrolman Paul Curran. He was standing near it, he said, when ?all of a sudden the ground just started shaking. It felt like a train was running under my feet. . . . The next thing we know, we look up and the tower is collapsing.?

medical technician Lonnie Penn, who said that just before the collapse of the south tower: ?I felt the ground shake, I turned around and ran for my life. I made it as far as the Financial Center when the collapse happened.?

Lieutenant Bradley Mann of the fire department, one of the people to witness both collapses, described shaking prior to each of them. "Shortly before the first tower came down,? he said, ?I remember feeling the ground shaking. I heard a terrible noise, and then debris just started flying everywhere. People started running." Then, after they had returned to the area, he said, ?we basically had the same thing: The ground shook again, and we heard another terrible noise and the next thing we knew the second tower was coming down."

Once again cherry picked quotes from a truth site that do not say what you think they say.

so we have people who saw flashes, heard explosions, and felt the ground shaking before the towers collapase. what rational explanation/specualtion do you have?

Show me the flashes described on any video of the towers?
Explosions do not mean bombs
They feel the ground shake, they look up the towers are on their way down. They feel it before they see it. Not too difficult to understand is it?

Belz...

9th January 2008, 05:40 AM

Still waiting, soul.

thewholesoul

9th January 2008, 05:31 PM

This is completely wrong thewholesoul. NIST does not agree with you.

my conclusion was correct. however the premises upon which that conlusion was reached - is apparently wrong.

i argued that it is simply impossible that jet fuel could have travelled all the way down to B2-3 without deflagrating into a fireball given all the ignition sources that were present and capable. I stand by that conclusion. But it must be abandoned because the main premise was wrong.

My argument was based on the false premise that fireballs had not traveled down the elevator shaft prior to B2-3. i received this false premise in a response from non other than my pal Gravy.

thewholesoul, you seem to be under the impression that fireballs traveled down the elevator shafts from the impact zones. None of us make that claim, nor does NIST or anyone else I've seen besides truthers. Fuel poured down the shafts. It could have ignited and deflagrated at any point: as clearly it did at various levels. If David is describing the same explosion as Rodriguez is, then it likely was below him. And remember, the 50 elevator came to a halt below the B1 level.

Is this clear?

After reading your previous posts elsewhere and after reading the relevant pages on the NISTNCSTAR – i now know that fireballs were reported by numerous witnesses shooting out of the elevator shaft in floors not so far away from the imapct zone and progressing downwards.

Here is a relevant quote i found - The doors were blown off by the fireball that came down the elevator shaft and the elevators cars were burned. (Basement level of WTC 1). (NIST NCSTAR 1-8, p.43)

Here we see that NIST does state a fireball traveled down the shaft.

You say in a post of yours that

The burning jet fuel cascading/raining down the elevator shafts of car number 6,7 and 50 would consume all available oxygen in the shaft on its way down. Behind the burning front of the fireball, in the shafts

so there was a fireball descending down the elevator shaft from the imapct zone.

Ok gravy although you take pleasure from making snide and insulting comments at myself i want to know if you are going to retract that false statement you posted to me

thewholesoul, you seem to be under the impression that fireballs traveled down the elevator shafts from the impact zones. None of us make that claim, nor does NIST or anyone else I've seen besides truthers

It seems my initial impression was right after all and is supported by NIST.

I can only conclude by your factually incorrect an false statement that you are either ignorant of the NIST report, which i seriously doubt. Thus you must be lying because you knew that fireballs were stated by NIST to have travelled down the elevator shaft.

now you know i have no problem retracting false statments – i did it openly in the forum and even sent you a private mail. Are you going to retract your lie? are you going to take the path of a rational adult?

thewholesoul

9th January 2008, 05:38 PM

This is completely wrong thewholesoul. NIST does not agree with you. You should either admit that you were wrong, or if that is to hard on you, you should just leave this thread quietly.

As explained my conclusion was correct but unfortunately it rested on a false premise.

I have no problem admitting when i am wrong – i have doen so several times before – and most likely will do again at some point in time.

I have no intention of quietly leaving this thread – i’m going out in a hail of bullets!!

thewholesoul

9th January 2008, 05:53 PM

Hey norseman i would like to a pay a brief compliment to your style of argumentation. Its among the highest quality i have seen on the forum to date. Well sourced, intelligent and straight to the point.

Anyways on with my post

After doing a bit of research the last days, here are some thoughts on why the jet fuel fireballs on sublevel B4 and in the lobby of WTC 1 could be so destructive.

(a)the “explosion” was somewhere below B1 and above B4 – this is where the “alleged” fuel deflagration occured and requires explanation.

(b)Whatever expoded in B2-3 is obviously responsible for the subsequent fireball witnessed by people in B4 and B1.

The keyword is backdraft. The burning jet fuel cascading/raining down the elevator shafts of car number 6,7 and 50 would consume all available oxygen in the shaft on its way down. Behind the burning front of the fireball, in the shafts, there would follow a cloud of expanding hot gasses including evaporated jet fuel, CO and likely pyrolyzed jet fuel, all lacking oxygen to combust.

(a) the explosion in B2-3 happened before car 50 reached its final destination. That means that the jet fuel must have past the falling elevator. The elevator is not airtight so i assume descending jet fuel or vapour could have accessed the elevator. However neither Arturo Griffith or Marlene Cruz reported seeing or smelling jet fuel. When they were rescued there was no report of seeing or smelling jet fuel in, on, or near the elevator or elevator shaft..

(b) Giambanco heard an explosion first. Later he entered an elevator (not sure which). he did not describe seeing or smelling jet fuel. If the jet fuel cascaded down the elevator shaft – it must have – past the elevator to cause the explosion in B2-3. if it had past the elevator that Giambanco entered we would expect to see jet fuel dripping past the open door. He described no such thing.

(c) if the descending jet fuel was headed by a “buring fireball” that shot out the shafts below then this claim is refuted by Felipe Davids testimony.

The building started shaking after I heard the explosion below, dust was flying everywhere and all of a sudden it got real hot

Felipe David was standing beside the freight elevator shaft when FIRST he heard an explosion below then LATER he was burned. In order for your claim to be true the fireball had to pass David cause the explosion he heard below and then shot out of the elevator shaft he was standing beside. This is not possible.

(d) because we know the explosion occured in B2-3 before the freight car arrived at its final destination that means the “burning fireball” had to pass the freight car in order to cause the explosion. if the “burning fireball” past the car 50 followed by the expanding hot gases i would expect the occupants of the elevator to report something about heat, fire, smell of gas, jet fuel etc. They did not.

(e) if the fireball shot out of lobby and B4 shaft – i would expect that it shoot out of every elevator door between the lobby and B4. no fireball shot out of Giambanco’s shaft on B1.

When the fireball shot out of the shafts at the bottom, all the unburned gasses mixed with fresh air and rapidly deflagrated, causing the overpressure that blew out walls and windows.

(a) the “explosion” occured somewhere between the lobby and B4 – this is where you must explain the deflagration.

(b) your explanation is inconsistent with testinomy. In the lobby.
“On the ground level, Michael DeVito was just entering the north tower lobby. He was late for his job on the 77th floor. As he walked into the lobby, he felt a huge explosion. A massive blast of air struck him. He guessed it was a suitcase bomb, but apparently it was air from the plane crash shooting down the elevator shafts. Black smoke filled the lobby.”
Source: Dorschner, John. "Heroics reflect an enduring spirit", Charlotte Observer / Knight Ridder, September 16, 2001

What produced the massive blast of air? we know that numerous witnesses heard an explosion below in B2-3. for this reason i am assuming that Devito is talking about the same explosion. we know that the result of this explosion in B2-3 felipe david on B1 received burns. Giambanco also on B1 reports “an incredible force of wind” presumably resulting from the same explosion. if the damage in the lobby was caused by a descending fireball and oxygen starved fuel vapour then Michael Devito would have reported the “air stricking him first” and then the “huge explosion”. because he did not – we know that the explosion in the basement produced the air stricking him.

(c) if deflagration occured in the lobby then how could it occur in B4? Two deflagrations one in the lobby and one in B4 yet felipe david did not hear two explosions. He did not hear an explosion above. He heard an explosion below and was later burnt.

Normally backdraft occurs in fires when fresh air suddenly enters the confined space of an oxygen starved fire. The principle would be the same for an oxygen starved fireball that shoots in to a room filled with fresh air.

(a)but where did the oxygen starved burning fire ball get the energy to burst or shot through an elevator door? It would have needed to explode first in order to burst down a door. But in order to deflagrate it needed to burst down the door to allow the jet vapour to mix with air.

(b)If the buring fireball can shot through any door and deflagrate then unless the elevator doors are different on each floor one would expect that the fireball would shot through every elevator shaft door from the impact zone with the consequent deflagration. But this did not happen.

(c)If the fireball has enough energy to take a horizontal turn and shoot threw and burst down an elevator door why was the elevator car 50 not damaged or the occupants not burnt from the same fireball which must have past them to cause the explosion in B2-3?

thewholesoul

9th January 2008, 06:46 PM

Hey funk de fino – there is no question that you are an intelligent man

but being human you also make mistakes as i will demonstrate below.

Now i had been arguing on numerous occassions that it is not possible that the jet fuel could descend down the elevator shaft without igniting into a fireball before it reached the basement.

I said All of your possible ignition sources and the more you provide only make it more incredible that the jet fuel could have reached the basement without igniting and exploding into a fireball beforehand.

You replied You are forgetting the LEL and UEL again. You have the three things for the fire remember. If we have all the correct ignition sources in the shaft. What could be missing from the equation?

I said .explain to me how the flammable jet fuel travelled down 90+floors without igniting into a fireball.

You said See above for the comment about correct ratio of fuel to oxygen for why it did not ignite. If you have a small flame burning and you take a bucket of petrol and dump the petrol on the flame the flame will be extinguished because you have added too much fuel to the triangle.

you said The thousands of gallons of jet fuel cascading down the shaft just after impact does not mean you have this correct atmosphere present all the way down the shaft. See the bucket of petrol experiments above.

I said imagine i was a student in your classroom I ask you, excuse me sir, but how did the jet fuel not ignite into a fireball before it reached B2-3 in both towers?

you said Sorry pal, you are not bright enough to be one of my students but i will play your game anyway. You will recieve an F though

you said I would tell you that there was not necessarily and explosive atmosphere travelling down the shaft at that point. I would carry out the bucket of petrol experiment (I would make you pay as petrol is very expensive here) and try again to reiterate the relationship between the LEL, UEL and the fire triangle

you said If you had already asked it before and continued to show a complete and utter failure to show that you could understand basic theories like these, then yes,I would throw you out and inform your supervisor

After reading norseman’s post citing the NCSTAR report on the descending fireball you moved into damage control

If we look at it from a point of view of the fuel cascades down the shaft in liquid form, thousands of gallons of it. This is a theoretical model and in no way is supposed to say exactly what happened on the day.

Then you reiterate your position

As it is travelling down the shaft the fuel is above the UEL for the available ignition sources and will not ignite.

Then you contradict your entire position

Witnesses and reports seem to suggest the flaming fireball travelled down the shaft.

Obviously you were wrong and i was right. You argued against me basically claiming that it is possible that the jet fuel could have traveled down the elevator shaft without igniting into a fireball before it reached the B2-3.

Your position was contrary to NIST - The doors were blown off by the fireball that came down the elevator shaft and the elevators cars were burned. (Basement level of WTC 1). (NIST NCSTAR 1-8, p.43)

So funk – are you going to remain true to your words

Show me one (a mistake, and) I will admit it. Even a spelling mistake would do, I am man enough to fess up..

Can i re-enter your classroom after being unjustly thrown out?

funk de fino

10th January 2008, 03:31 AM

TWS

Why did you post my statement about it being theoretical theories I was trying to teach you this time but not when you quoted it before?

I am not in any way trying to say exactly what happened that day (and I have stated this). You were saying that we needed scale models and experimentation to find ignition sources etc and I was using theory to try to show you why this was not needed.

I am saying that in this case there were far more variables on the day than just ignition sources and their locations. You are the guy who questioned whether switches could be a source. I was also trying to show you the relationship between the ignition source and the explosive atmosphere to further show that we would not need experimentation as it would be nigh on impossible to find exactly what happened that day.

Do you understand that just because you have fuel/oxygen and heat that you will not always have a fire?

Do you understand that you need all three to have a fire?

Do you understand that all three have to be in the corect condition for fire?

Rememeber this post?

one would expect that if the debris was flaming it would have ignited the jet fuel in the elevator before reaching the basement. i would love to an experiment which could demonstrate how this could possibly have happened.
the spark hypothesis

first question is what caused the spark or sparks?
second, assuming the emergency brakes of the freight elevator produced sparks how come that did not ignite the jet fuel?
third, how come jet fuel ignited twice in both towers at the same b2-3 location?
so what caused the spark in the elevator? and once we agree on what could have caused the spark an experiment is needed in order to prove that a spark could ignite the falling jet fuel.

This one

Obviously you were wrong and i was right. You argued against me basically claiming that it is possible that the jet fuel could have traveled down the elevator shaft without igniting into a fireball before it reached the B2-3.

I note you missed this one

Now, I do not claim to know the exact specifics of what happened that day as far as the explosions, fireballs etc, what I am trying to show you is that there are numerous explanations for what happened and none of them are out of the oridinary or new theories or miraculous happenings. I am trying to show you that you do not understand basic theories which is why you are struggling here and unable to understand the things that happened on that day.

I was giving you theoretical models based on all possible variables. I said it was possible and tried to explain the theory why? You have flip flopped between both claims and I was trying to show the variables in favour of both. You aksed me for answers and I tried to answer them using theory. Now you are quotemining me to try to make it look as if I am contradicting myself. Very poor show pal.

I was trying to explain all the variables and was not trying to say what actually happened. I was giving you experiments to prove theories. The fact that you actually cannot see this means you now get a F- and still thrown off. Only this time your supervisor is advised to fire you because you are incapable of reaching job standard.

Continue in this dishonest vein and I will respond no further but if you want more genuine questions answered on this topic feel free to ask away.

Prior to that you may be better to go back to look at Gravy's post # 1005 and give me some answers on this testimony? Count up those numbers and then tell me how many witness you have that actually seen bombs, thermite or explosions with blast effects. Then explain that if we have fuel, air and heat, and we have correct ratio explosive atmosphere, exactly why we need the bombs or thermite. If the bombs or thermite was used to create damage in the basement levels then why did the cores stand longer than the rest of the building on collapse and why did the buildings take so long to collapse after the basement event?