TAM explains why global collapse was inevitable

[theauthor]

In another thread, TAM made the following definitive statement

Once collapse begins, complete collapse must happen.


Despite me asking for a source, he has provided no evidence. In this thread he can explain why complete collapse must happen.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I suspect what you are looking for is in the post you carefully mined those 7 words from.

[theauthor]

I suspect what you are looking for is in the post you carefully mined those 7 words from.

You are wrong, as usual. Here is TAMs exact post

here it is in grade three english for you.

Plane hit building. Much damage occurred to structure.
Hot fires cause steel to get weak.
Weight of top section on weakened steel causes collapse to begin.
Once collapse begins, complete collapse must happen.
Collapse causes drywall to turn to dust. Same happens to much of (but not all)
of the concrete within the building.
Little in the way of large debris, outside of steel remains.

And yes, this can happen with the heat produced by an office fire, especially when fire proofing is damaged and/or removed, as NIST has shown.

Now bring on the Woo!!!

TAM

No explanation there. He just makes the claim casually and ignored my request for a source.

[IDB87]

TheAuthor: Was each individual floor designed to support the entire weight of the tower above falling as one mass onto it?

Didn't Newtons Bit (Or was it Greening..) do some calculations in regards to the lower section's resistance to the falling upper section?

[Quad4_72]

In another thread, TAM made the following definitive statement




Despite me asking for a source, he has provided no evidence. In this thread he can explain why complete collapse must happen.

You are FAILING again author. Why do you always FAIL at understanding event he simplest of concepts? What makes you think that one floor of the towers can simply stop the falling mass of the entire upper sections of those structures?

[MarkyX]

In another thread, TAM made the following definitive statement




Despite me asking for a source, he has provided no evidence. In this thread he can explain why complete collapse must happen.

Can you please explain to me how a building can suddenly stop its own collapse?

[jhunter1163]

TAM, while certainly not a dunce (he is a physician after all), isn't an engineering specialist. I would suggest theauthor look at some posts by Newton's Bit or rwguinn, who are both engineers and have explained comprehensively why global collapse was inevitable without invoking hush-a-boom, mini-nukes or giant orbital microwave ovens.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Can you please explain to me how a building can suddenly stop its own collapse?

It's like Wile E. Coyote running off a cliff. Gravity had no effect on him until he became aware of its prescence.

Since the WTC towers are inanimate objects and cannot have had awareness of anything, they cannot have been affected by by a force that requires the attention of its victims before it takes effect.

Duuuhhhh...

[DGM]

Can you please explain to me how a building can suddenly stop its own collapse?
This is really dumb (not you MarkyX). He asked T.A.M. for a source when it clear that T.A.M. said it?

Wouldn't T.A.M. be the source or is that too obvious for these guy's?

[theauthor]

Can you please explain to me how a building can suddenly stop its own collapse?


There are plenty of partial collapses of buildings.

[theauthor]

TAM, while certainly not a dunce (he is a physician after all), isn't an engineering specialist. I would suggest theauthor look at some posts by Newton's Bit or rwguinn, who are both engineers and have explained comprehensively why global collapse was inevitable without invoking hush-a-boom, mini-nukes or giant orbital microwave ovens.


Nobody has shown that global collapse was inevitable. Possible maybe, but not inevitable.

[~enigma~]

There are plenty of partial collapses of buildings.
them to any other collapse.Yes there were plenty but I got a question for you. Were any of them 110 story buildings with each floor being an acre? If not, you really can't compare But then again, if your attempt is to deceive you can go ahead with your comparison.

[IDB87]

Nobody has shown that global collapse was inevitable. Possible maybe, but not inevitable.

Global collapse was inevitable given the circumstances surrounding the way in which the towers were damaged, and continued to be damaged after impact.

Of course this acknowledgement comes after reading the NIST report, or at least parts of it.

Have you ...read the NIST report?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Nobody has shown that global collapse was inevitable. Possible maybe, but not inevitable.

Scale modeling of the 96th floor of world trade center tower 1. Wang, M; Chang, P; Quintiere, J, et al. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities.

A suggested cause of the fire-induced collapse of the World Trade Towers. Quintiere, JG; di Marzo, M; Becker, R. Fire Safety Journal.

Engineering perspective of the collapse of WTC-I. Irfanoglu, A; Hoffmann, CM. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities.

The role of metallurgy in the NIST investigation of the world trade center towers collapse. Banovic, SW; Foecke, T; Luecke, WE, et al. Journal of Mechanics.

Failure of welded floor truss connections from the exterior wall during collapse of the World Trade Center towers. Banovic, S.W; Siewert, T.A. Welding Journal.

Mechanics of the WTC collapse. Cherepanov, G.P. International Journal of Fracture.

Progressive collapse of towers: The resistance effect. Cherepanov, G.P; Esparragoza, I.E International Journal of Fracture.

Impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft into the World Trade Center. Karim, M.R; Fatt, MSH. Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

Structural responses of world trade center under aircraft attacks. Omika, Y; Fukuzawa, E; Koshika, N, et al. Journal of Structural Engineering.

The structural steel of the World Trade Center towers. Gayle, FW; Banovic, SW; Foecke, T, et al. Advanced Materials and Processes.

How did the WTC towers collapse: a new theory. Usmani, AS; Chung, YC; Torero, JL. Fire Safety Journal.

Progressive collapse of the World Trade Center: Simple analysis. Seffen, K. A. Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

Why did the World Trade Center collapse? - Simple analysis. Bazant, ZP; Zhou, Y. Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center. Wierzbicki, T; Teng, X. International Journal of Impact Engineering.

Could the world trade center have been modified to prevent its collapse?; Newland, D. E.; Cebon, D. Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation. Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C., Journal of Mechanics.

Dissecting the Collapses. Civil Engineering ASCE.

Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers. Clifton, Charles G., HERA: Innovation in Metals.

Stability of the World Trade Center Twin Towers Structural Frame in Multiple Floor Fires. By: Usmani, A. S. Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

The Structural Steel of the World Trade Center Towers. Gayle, Frank W.; Banovic, Stephen W.; Foecke, Tim. Advanced Materials & Processes.

WTC Findings Uphold Structural Design. Post, Nadine M. Engineering News Record.

World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations. Monahan, B., Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction.

Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers: What caused it and what didn't. Bazant, ZP; Benson, D; Greening, F; Le, J.

Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions. Bazant, ZP; Verdure, M.

"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering" Marechaux, T.G. JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.

Abboud, N., M. Levy, D. Tennant, J. Mould, H. Levine, S. King, C. Ekwueme, A. Jain, G. Hart. (2003) Anatomy of a Disaster: A Structural Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapses. In: Proceedings of the Third Congress on Forensic Engineering. San Diego: American Society of Civil Engineers. pp 360-370

Beyler, C., D. White, M. Peatross, J. Trellis, S. Li, A. Luers, D. Hopkins. (2003) Analysis of the Thermal Exposure in the Impact Areas of the World Trade Center Terrorist Attacks. In: Proceedings of the Third Congress on Forensic Engineering. San Diego: American Society of Civil Engineers. pp 371-382

Thater, G. G.; Panariello, G. F.; Cuoco, D. A. (2003) World Trade Center Disaster: Damage/Debris Assessment In: Proceedings of the Third Congress on Forensic Engineering. San Diego: American Society of Civil Engineers. pp 383-392

Your fact-checking sucks, theauthor.

[MarkyX]

There are plenty of partial collapses of buildings.

In other words, parts of the building fell, right? It didn't stop mid-way through?

[bje]

Author,

A good post from a few years ago on BAUTforum:

Well, you know, I'm hardly a structural engineer myself, so I'm relying on the words of others on the subject, too.

However.

If practically the entire structural engineering community says, "This is what almost certainly happened," I trust them. They would know; I do not. I have no reason to trust people without training in the relevant field unless they somehow show that they are truly equipped to answer questions, and I've not seen anyone from the CT side who can. At least, not that can answer reasonable questions in a reasonable manner, including providing evidence.

We are trying to teach critical thinking skills here, I think. Don't just take someone's word for it, in other words, but know whether their word is worth taking. (Hint: the No Plane people are not worth trusting.) Big Friggin' Planes plus Big Friggin' Fire equals Big Friggin' Collapse. What's so unbelievable about that?

Gillianhttp://www.bautforum.com/869222-post316.html

[BenBurch]

Nobody has shown that global collapse was inevitable. Possible maybe, but not inevitable.

Here is where it is demonstrated; http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

Bazant and Zhou make a VERY favorable set of assumptions for the integrity of the building. UNREASONABLY favorable for arrest of collapse. And then they show that it must still fail!

In the real case, the building failed in a way that made arrest much less likely than in the Bazant and Zhou model. (And that is my only gripe with it; By optimizing the strength of the building they fail to describe the real collapse which was to a much weaker situation.)

[Undesired Walrus]

The author seems to have this idea that the top quarter of the building -all 200 million pounds- simply casually rests on a single floor after plunging straight onto it.

I blame the air in Manchester for this outcome.

[theauthor]

Global collapse was inevitable given the circumstances surrounding the way in which the towers were damaged, and continued to be damaged after impact.

Of course this acknowledgement comes after reading the NIST report, or at least parts of it.

Have you ...read the NIST report?

Which parts of the NIST report cover global collapse?

[theauthor]

In other words, parts of the building fell, right? It didn't stop mid-way through?


No. Look at this one

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ff1_1210707903

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Which parts of the NIST report cover global collapse?

Have you tried getting a copy of the report and looking in the index or table of contents?

Or have you been taught by the high priests of your movement that looking at the NIST report will cause your retinas to rupture with unholy hellfire and that you should take their interpretation of the report as Gods law?

[theauthor]

Have you tried getting a copy of the report and looking in the index or table of contents?

Or have you been taught by the high priests of your movement that looking at the NIST report will cause your retinas to rupture with unholy hellfire and that you should take their interpretation of the report as Gods law?

The NIST report doesnt cover global collapse. Just says it is inevitable.

[beachnut]

Nobody has shown that global collapse was inevitable. Possible maybe, but not inevitable.That is a lie. Or you suffer from poor research.

[Megalodon]

No. Look at this one

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ff1_1210707903

You are not seriously comparing that to the wtc, are you?

[Dog Town]

That is a lie. Or you suffer from poor research.

Why not both? This from a Masters in Maths from Man U! *snicker*


Priceless!

[Loss Leader]

No. Look at this one

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ff1_1210707903


15 story building - 110 story building

Parts of the left side of the top two or three floors collapse - Thirty floors collapse entirely

Skeletal construction with weight evenly distributed - Core construction with weight distributed unevenly against the core and the outer frame

Zero large passenger aircraft hit building - One large passenger aircraft hits building

Otherwise, it's a great comparison.

[twinstead]

theauthor the world's experts are against you; they must be in on the plot.

[theauthor]

You are not seriously comparing that to the wtc, are you?

Why not? You guys did.

[theauthor]

theauthor the world's experts are against you; they must be in on the plot.


Name them.

[Garb]

Can someone who is not a layman explain how the WTC should have arrested its own collapse?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The NIST report doesnt cover global collapse. Just says it is inevitable.

And the page number of the report where you found that is?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Name them.

Scale modeling of the 96th floor of world trade center tower 1. Wang, M; Chang, P; Quintiere, J, et al. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities.

A suggested cause of the fire-induced collapse of the World Trade Towers. Quintiere, JG; di Marzo, M; Becker, R. Fire Safety Journal.

Engineering perspective of the collapse of WTC-I. Irfanoglu, A; Hoffmann, CM. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities.

The role of metallurgy in the NIST investigation of the world trade center towers collapse. Banovic, SW; Foecke, T; Luecke, WE, et al. Journal of Mechanics.

Failure of welded floor truss connections from the exterior wall during collapse of the World Trade Center towers. Banovic, S.W; Siewert, T.A. Welding Journal.

Mechanics of the WTC collapse. Cherepanov, G.P. International Journal of Fracture.

Progressive collapse of towers: The resistance effect. Cherepanov, G.P; Esparragoza, I.E International Journal of Fracture.

Impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft into the World Trade Center. Karim, M.R; Fatt, MSH. Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

Structural responses of world trade center under aircraft attacks. Omika, Y; Fukuzawa, E; Koshika, N, et al. Journal of Structural Engineering.

The structural steel of the World Trade Center towers. Gayle, FW; Banovic, SW; Foecke, T, et al. Advanced Materials and Processes.

How did the WTC towers collapse: a new theory. Usmani, AS; Chung, YC; Torero, JL. Fire Safety Journal.

Progressive collapse of the World Trade Center: Simple analysis. Seffen, K. A. Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

Why did the World Trade Center collapse? - Simple analysis. Bazant, ZP; Zhou, Y. Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center. Wierzbicki, T; Teng, X. International Journal of Impact Engineering.

Could the world trade center have been modified to prevent its collapse?; Newland, D. E.; Cebon, D. Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation. Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C., Journal of Mechanics.

Dissecting the Collapses. Civil Engineering ASCE.

Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers. Clifton, Charles G., HERA: Innovation in Metals.

Stability of the World Trade Center Twin Towers Structural Frame in Multiple Floor Fires. By: Usmani, A. S. Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

The Structural Steel of the World Trade Center Towers. Gayle, Frank W.; Banovic, Stephen W.; Foecke, Tim. Advanced Materials & Processes.

WTC Findings Uphold Structural Design. Post, Nadine M. Engineering News Record.

World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations. Monahan, B., Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction.

Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers: What caused it and what didn't. Bazant, ZP; Benson, D; Greening, F; Le, J.

Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions. Bazant, ZP; Verdure, M.

"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering" Marechaux, T.G. JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.

Abboud, N., M. Levy, D. Tennant, J. Mould, H. Levine, S. King, C. Ekwueme, A. Jain, G. Hart. (2003) Anatomy of a Disaster: A Structural Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapses. In: Proceedings of the Third Congress on Forensic Engineering. San Diego: American Society of Civil Engineers. pp 360-370

Beyler, C., D. White, M. Peatross, J. Trellis, S. Li, A. Luers, D. Hopkins. (2003) Analysis of the Thermal Exposure in the Impact Areas of the World Trade Center Terrorist Attacks. In: Proceedings of the Third Congress on Forensic Engineering. San Diego: American Society of Civil Engineers. pp 371-382

Thater, G. G.; Panariello, G. F.; Cuoco, D. A. (2003) World Trade Center Disaster: Damage/Debris Assessment In: Proceedings of the Third Congress on Forensic Engineering. San Diego: American Society of Civil Engineers. pp 383-392


Howzzat?

[theauthor]

Howzzat?

That is all the worlds experts? What have they specifically said about global collapse?

[BenBurch]

That is all the worlds experts? What have they specifically said about global collapse?

ANYBODY but a supercilious buffoon would go and read the mother-loving papers.

[twinstead]

Name them.

Well, how about let's start with the contributors to the NIST, go to the University of Purdue...oh wait. You believe that any expert who hasn't explicitly come out in favor of the 'official story' just may think it was an inside job but is afraid to come out and say it.

Yea. Name them. That's exactly the response I expected. What a cop out. Here. Let me help you out with just a FEW:

Well, how about the American Society of Civil Engineers:
http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display_press.cfm?uid=1057

Or MIT:
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/

Or Purdue University:
http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html

I know, I know. All the contributers to the above are afraid of loosing their jobs. The largest controlled demolition organization in the US is also in on the plot as well:
http://www.implosionworld.com/wtc.htm

Those dirty bastards! How dare they disagree with you! And don't get me started on those Chinese fools who studied the collapses. Shills! All of them!

[bje]

That is all the worlds experts? What have they specifically said about global collapse?

Just what physics, structural engineering, evidence, and forensic science told them.

Any questions, author?

[twinstead]

That is all the worlds experts? What have they specifically said about global collapse?

We know this tactic. You want personal notes from every one of them or they 'don't count'

BS YOU ARE IN THE VAST MINORITY DEAL WITH IT.

[Profanz]

Well if Tam does ever manage to support his claim with evidence tell him to pass it on to NIST.

[bje]

We know this tactic. You want personal notes from every one of them or they 'don't count'

BS YOU ARE IN THE VAST MINORITY DEAL WITH IT.

He's just recycling the old canard that if there is no computer model of the actual collapse one cannot know what caused it.

:hb:

[twinstead]

Yup. If 'Gayle, Frank W' from above doesn't personally make a phone call to theauthor stating he believes the 'official story' he doesn't count.

This is such utter BS.

[twinstead]

Now. All theauther has to do is find a respected structural engineering or demolitions organization anywhere on Earth that has a collective opinion that the the 'official story' of the WTC collapse is impossible we will be getting somewhere.

[theauthor]

Now. All theauther has to do is find a respected structural engineering or demolitions organization anywhere on Earth that has a collective opinion that the the 'official story' of the WTC collapse is impossible we will be getting somewhere.

TAMs claim, TAMs burden.

[Profanz]

Now. All theauther has to do is find a respected structural engineering or demolitions organization anywhere on Earth that has a collective opinion that the the 'official story' of the WTC collapse is impossible we will be getting somewhere.

What is the official story and it's take on the collapse itself after initiation?

"We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse." - Bob McIlvaine, NIST

Tam? Oh Tam? Where are you? NIST needs you.

[Apollo20]

theauthor:

Collapse arrest does not appear to be the problem, ...... collapse initiation is the key.

That is all I know, and all I need to know............

[Garb]

I would also like to know how exactly a top down demolition can occur.

How is it timed?

Why aren't explosions heard?

How many explosives are needed?

Is it possible that many explosives could be smuggled in, put on columns, and left there without anyone noticing?

No one in the truth movement has been able to answer all of these questions with proof.

[Profanz]

How many explosives are needed?

None according to you.

[Garb]

None according to you.

Actually if that is the case it isn't called a demolition now is it?

Seeing as how the truth movement believes that the building couldn't have collapsed on its own, a certain amount of explosives would be required. Cherry picking my post and responding to it with irrelevancy doesn't answer any of it.

[Profanz]

Actually if that is the case it isn't called a demolition now is it?

Seeing as how the truth movement believes that the building couldn't have collapsed on its own, a certain amount of explosives would be required. Cherry picking my post and responding to it with irrelevancy doesn't answer any of it.

Oh I see. It's either no explosives at all or thousands of pounds of strategically placed explosives. Are those the only two choices now? Yeah that makes all the sense in the world. Sure. Continue with your relevancy.

[WildCat]

Oh I see. It's either no explosives at all or thousands of pounds of strategically placed explosives. Are those the only two choices now? Yeah that makes all the sense in the world. Sure. Continue with your relevancy.
You're claiming explosives, not us.

No explosives were observed or heard consistent with demo charges. Thermite is just silly (did truthburn ever manage to cut a column with thermite? Of course they haven't).

So more load than the top undamaged floor was designed to carry caused it to collapse, and so on and so on.

[Profanz]

You're claiming explosives, not us.

Where?

No explosives were observed or heard consistent with demo charges. Thermite is just silly (did truthburn ever manage to cut a column with thermite? Of course they haven't).

No skyscraper in the history of the world has ever been observed to collapse completely because of anything other then explosives either. So where does that leave you and your logic? Has anyone ever successfully modeled what it is you claimed happen on 9/11? Of course not.

and so on and so on.

Sounds like a hair product commercial.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Sounds like a hair commercial.

Where have you seen hair advertised?

I call on you to provide evidence for this or withdraw your statement.

[Profanz]

Where have you seen hair advertised?

I call on you to provide evidence for this or withdraw your statement.


-EtRss-gIac&

[Sword_Of_Truth]

-EtRss-gIac&

That is a commercial for shampoo. Shampoo is not hair. You specifically described a hair commercial, not a shampoo commercial.

Either prove that you've seen a commercial for hair, withdraw your claim or admit that you lied.

I await your response.

[Profanz]

That is a commercial for shampoo. Shampoo is not hair. You specifically described a hair commercial, not a shampoo commercial.

Either prove that you've seen a commercial for hair, withdraw your claim or admit that you lied.

I await your response.

Go back and check. Now can you do something better then compare the collapse of the WTC to an old hair product commercial? I await your brilliant response but I ain't holding my breath. Sometimes some people have stupidity that goes so on and so on and so on.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Don't go back and change what you wrote to save yourself from embarrassment.

Just admit that you were wrong and that you never saw a hair commercial.

In case you haven't noticed, I'm mimicking your "killtown" style of arguing. Where you pick on the tiniest little thing, misinterpret it and blow it waaaaaayyyy out of proportion.

Annoying as all hell, ain't it?

[Grizzly Bear]

Where?
No skyscraper in the history of the world has ever been observed to collapse completely because of anything other then explosives either.


This is a pretty old argument man... how many 110 story skyscrapers... better yet how many skyscrapers in general have been hit with a commercial airliner that started massive fires on several floors simultaneously? How many where built mostly of steel with the minimum amount of concrete possible?

Here's a hint... the Empire state building is not a solid example....

Show me any number of precedents of un-collapsed skyscrapers that had worse fires than the world trade centers and I can easily tell you why they did not collapse.

So I'll address the same question to you:
Where does that leave you and your logic?

[Garb]

Oh I see. It's either no explosives at all or thousands of pounds of strategically placed explosives. Are those the only two choices now? Yeah that makes all the sense in the world. Sure. Continue with your relevancy.

Think of it this way:

For each floor that the weight is falling on, ask yourself if the floor can arrest collapse. If it can, then explosives need to be placed on that floor or else the building will stop collapsing.

What other choices are there that will make the collapse look as if it is collapsing floor by floor without using explosives on each floor? Since you can't answer my questions, offer a better way to word my questions, or even direct me to someone who has already answered my questions, you should probably just stop the peanut gallery and let someone who can answer questions in a sincere way go ahead and respond to me.

[GlennB]

TAMs claim, TAMs burden.

Why not just assume that it was TAM who gave you the stonkin' great list of studies into WTC collapse that others here gave?

Then go and read a few of them and reconsider your position. This way you might learn how to stop displaying your ignorance and petulance in public.

[R.Mackey]

Oh I see. It's either no explosives at all or thousands of pounds of strategically placed explosives. Are those the only two choices now? Yeah that makes all the sense in the world. Sure. Continue with your relevancy.

Yes, that is absolutely correct.

Let's think about this carefully. If the fire has no effect on the structure, then we need thousands of pounds of explosives. That should be obvious, but I can elaborate if need be.

If, on the other hand, a lesser amount of explosives might suffice, you have acknowledged that the fire does affect the structure. This is correct, and we will use this assumption hereafter. The problem is, since fire affects the structure, if we're going to scale explosives accordingly, we need to know -- in advance -- how much. It could be that no explosives are needed at all.

To simplify the problem, think of the structure's strength as a function of time as a single quantity. The structure starts with a given strength that is much higher than its load, and as the fire burns, that strength diminishes. If the strength ever falls below the load, the structure will collapse. With me so far?

If, as you suggest, a greatly diminished amount of explosives is needed, then you are assuming the fires have greatly weakened the structures -- wiping out 75% or 90% or even more of the structure's margin at the moment you detonate the explosives. But if the fire could do that, why couldn't it eliminate 100%? Both WTC 1 and WTC 2 were still burning fiercely at the moment of collapse. Rather than trigger explosives, why not just wait a few more minutes? What was so important about those particular moments that they had to come down right then?

With me so far? The problem is actually much harder, because you need to be able to predict the weakening as a function of time. The shape of that strength curve will steadily decrease, until the fires burn out, at which point it will recover a little. But the rate of decrease and the actual minimum value depend very strongly on fireproofing, and how the fires progress. If floors burn out very quickly, or smoulder at low temperature for a long period of time, it is possible for the structure to recover a lot of its original strength. But otherwise, it won't, and contracting structural elements may actually weaken the structure further after fires burn out. If the fire spreads to too many floors at once, it weakens the structure much faster by reducing buckling resistance. There are a whole family of possible curves. Which one you end up on depends on exactly how the aircraft hits, how much combustible furniture there is and where, what happens with windows and elevator shafts, and so on. All of this would have to be known precisely, and well in advance, even assuming you could model the problem perfectly. Which, of course, you can't.

But we're still thinking about this in greatly simplified terms. The real structure has an ultimate strength, but that strength is distributed. You not only need to know how much strength remains to figure out how much explosives you can get away with, but you need to know where and when to trigger those explosives. Since we're relying on fire to eat up most of the structure's margin, we need to predict exactly which load paths are going to remain at that point in time, otherwise our explosives will just blow out columns that have already lost their strength. We also need, if we're doing this efficiently, to wait for the right time, i.e. when the structure reaches its minimum strength. That could take hours.

Alas, this is still too simple. Our explosives, in order to be effective, need to be in the fire for hours. Blowing up explosives away from the fire probably doesn't help because the unburned structure retains its full strength, and we again have to use tons of explosives. But putting explosives in the fire, deliberately, is not very reliable. They may fail to detonate, melt, burn, or even explode prematurely. They may fall away from their columns and explode harmlessly. It isn't clear if this approach can work at all, but surely it would require many times the minimum amount of explosives just to provide some functional redundancy. Otherwise, you could have a structure that doesn't fall, and leaves unexploded bombs waiting to be found.

Did I mention this was too simple? Suppose the plane impacts a few feet higher or lower than you plan. Or hits at a slightly different angle. This could change the fire evolution dramatically. The minimum amount of explosives, again, is just not safe. You'd need a much larger amount to handle variation in the impacts. Otherwise, again, it might not collapse. For example, if the plane hit pitched down, rather than damage the core it would totally destroy nearby floors, and jet fuel and furniture would literally drain away to a lower level. That would change the fire behavior completely.

Bottom line, if you're going to do it with explosives, you need tons of explosives. There is no alternative. You cannot possibly anticipate the structure's behavior with enough accuracy to get it done reliably with less. This is one of many reasons why the very idea of "controlled demolition" is, and always has been, absolutely insane.

[gumboot]

In its simplest form, if you argue that only a small amount of explosives is required to collapse the entire structure, you must then accept that global collapse will result from a local failure. The only point of contention, therefore, is determining if the collapse initiation was a result of fire and impact damage, or some form of incendiary device.

This is precisely what NIST's 10,000 page report does - it studies collapse initiation. And their findings quite clearly refute anything other than fire and impact damage as the initiator.

See, Conspiracy Theorists are caught in a trap. Fire and impact undeniable caused collapse. The observed phenomenon, as well as studies after the fact, confirm it. No other hypothesis explains what has been observed.

Because deep down conspiracy theorists know this, they claim that collapse would have been arrested. But if this were the case, a demolition triggered at a local floor would also be arrested, so you're stuck blasting every few floors, which drags you into the "obscenely ridiculous amount of prep time" rut. Deep down conspiracy theorists know this is impossible too, so they revert back to the "explosives on just a few floors" canard, which brings us back to NIST and their identification of the initiating event.

And round we go...

[gumboot]

And as for comparing other collapses, if anyone thinks the Delft collapse is comparable with the WTC they are sadly mistaken. If anyone thinks the Delft collapse was arrested, they are sadly mistaken. And they also understand nothing about even the most basic physics. You don't even need to be an engineer to understand the difference. Three key phrases to help you out:

1) Centre of gravity
2) Structure footprint
3) Height/width ratio

Have a think on those, and consider, particularly, how they relate to the "above collapse" portion of the Delft building versus the WTC.

[chillzero]

Go back and check. Now can you do something better then compare the collapse of the WTC to an old hair product commercial? I await your brilliant response but I ain't holding my breath. Sometimes some people have stupidity that goes so on and so on and so on.

And here we have another brilliant example of tactics, apart from the Sword_of_Truth was mimicing. Historical revision, and basic dishonesty.

I can confirm that the original quote was "Sounds like a hair commercial."

The honest thing would have been to laugh it off and say "fair cop... boy, that's funny, SoT", but no - the ingrained and typical response is to go back, change was what written and accuse the opponent of dishonesty.

[CptColumbo]

Can you please explain to me how a building can suddenly stop its own collapse?Magic or midgets.















...OR MAGICAL MIDGETS!!! OMG!!!

[chillzero]

TAMs claim, TAMs burden.

theauthor, can you identify where TAM made the claim?

Let me help you out - you can't, because he didn't. Nobody did.

The closest that came to it was this:

theauthor the world's experts are against you; they must be in on the plot.

which you challenged, and were directed back to a previous post you had ignored on the matter. Instead of accepting the expertise, or challenging whether the information provided is valid or relevant, you instead switch to semantics:

That is all the worlds experts? What have they specifically said about global collapse?

Firstly - nobody said this was a list of all the world's experts. What it is, is a list of experts who support the theory that collapse of the towers was inevitable. Why can't you research and refute their claims if you disagree?

Next, if you really want to know what they say about global collapse (instead of giving the impression that you are merely trolling and yanking chains here) - go look it up. Why should everyone else continue to do your homework? Come back and tell us when you find anything that is invalid, incorrect or invented without evidential support.

[jhunter1163]

I fail to understand why theauthor is so hung up on getting a statement from TAM. TAM is not an engineer; he is a physician. I would no more ask him about why the Twin Towers collapsed than I would ask Newton's Bit about this pain in my knee. Both are very smart men and I have great respect for them; but it's just silly to ask them questions outside their area of expertise, particularly when the answer to that question has been posted in this very thread. But since the answer didn't come from TAM, it's ignored.

Theauthor certainly seems intelligent enough: I can only conclude that he is willfully ignoring the answer to his question to make some obscure point.

[Profanz]

Yes, that is absolutely correct.

Let's think about this carefully. If the fire has no effect on the structure, then we need thousands of pounds of explosives. That should be obvious, but I can elaborate if need be.

If, on the other hand, a lesser amount of explosives might suffice, you have acknowledged that the fire does affect the structure. This is correct, and we will use this assumption hereafter. The problem is, since fire affects the structure, if we're going to scale explosives accordingly, we need to know -- in advance -- how much. It could be that no explosives are needed at all.

To simplify the problem, think of the structure's strength as a function of time as a single quantity. The structure starts with a given strength that is much higher than its load, and as the fire burns, that strength diminishes. If the strength ever falls below the load, the structure will collapse. With me so far?

If, as you suggest, a greatly diminished amount of explosives is needed, then you are assuming the fires have greatly weakened the structures -- wiping out 75% or 90% or even more of the structure's margin at the moment you detonate the explosives. But if the fire could do that, why couldn't it eliminate 100%? Both WTC 1 and WTC 2 were still burning fiercely at the moment of collapse. Rather than trigger explosives, why not just wait a few more minutes? What was so important about those particular moments that they had to come down right then?

With me so far? The problem is actually much harder, because you need to be able to predict the weakening as a function of time. The shape of that strength curve will steadily decrease, until the fires burn out, at which point it will recover a little. But the rate of decrease and the actual minimum value depend very strongly on fireproofing, and how the fires progress. If floors burn out very quickly, or smoulder at low temperature for a long period of time, it is possible for the structure to recover a lot of its original strength. But otherwise, it won't, and contracting structural elements may actually weaken the structure further after fires burn out. If the fire spreads to too many floors at once, it weakens the structure much faster by reducing buckling resistance. There are a whole family of possible curves. Which one you end up on depends on exactly how the aircraft hits, how much combustible furniture there is and where, what happens with windows and elevator shafts, and so on. All of this would have to be known precisely, and well in advance, even assuming you could model the problem perfectly. Which, of course, you can't.

But we're still thinking about this in greatly simplified terms. The real structure has an ultimate strength, but that strength is distributed. You not only need to know how much strength remains to figure out how much explosives you can get away with, but you need to know where and when to trigger those explosives. Since we're relying on fire to eat up most of the structure's margin, we need to predict exactly which load paths are going to remain at that point in time, otherwise our explosives will just blow out columns that have already lost their strength. We also need, if we're doing this efficiently, to wait for the right time, i.e. when the structure reaches its minimum strength. That could take hours.

Alas, this is still too simple. Our explosives, in order to be effective, need to be in the fire for hours. Blowing up explosives away from the fire probably doesn't help because the unburned structure retains its full strength, and we again have to use tons of explosives. But putting explosives in the fire, deliberately, is not very reliable. They may fail to detonate, melt, burn, or even explode prematurely. They may fall away from their columns and explode harmlessly. It isn't clear if this approach can work at all, but surely it would require many times the minimum amount of explosives just to provide some functional redundancy. Otherwise, you could have a structure that doesn't fall, and leaves unexploded bombs waiting to be found.

Did I mention this was too simple? Suppose the plane impacts a few feet higher or lower than you plan. Or hits at a slightly different angle. This could change the fire evolution dramatically. The minimum amount of explosives, again, is just not safe. You'd need a much larger amount to handle variation in the impacts. Otherwise, again, it might not collapse. For example, if the plane hit pitched down, rather than damage the core it would totally destroy nearby floors, and jet fuel and furniture would literally drain away to a lower level. That would change the fire behavior completely.

Bottom line, if you're going to do it with explosives, you need tons of explosives. There is no alternative. You cannot possibly anticipate the structure's behavior with enough accuracy to get it done reliably with less. This is one of many reasons why the very idea of "controlled demolition" is, and always has been, absolutely insane.

Let me first thank you for your long and considered response. Not that it was all for my benefit but thanks anyway. And yes I’m with you despite of it but let me ask you something.

Did the WTC burn down now?

[~enigma~]

Let me first thank you for your long and considered response.
And let me add that it was wasted on deaf ears and blind eyes.

No charge for that edit Profanz...

[kookbreaker]

The honest thing would have been to laugh it off and say "fair cop... boy, that's funny, SoT", but no - the ingrained and typical response is to go back, change was what written and accuse the opponent of dishonesty.

Admitting anything of the sort would be considered a sign of weakness. Nobody in the truth movement wants to do that, no matter how small they end up looking by their petty acts.

[BenBurch]

The Author Has Left The Building...

[~enigma~]

The Author Has Left The Building...
Are you saying theauthor is really Elvis?

[jhunter1163]

The Author Has Left The Building...

I thought this meant he was banned. He's still active though, just a distant dot on the horizon as he runs from another thread...

[twinstead]

It's all my fault; no matter what, every time it is rightfully brought up that as a whole, the world's experts have very little problem with the ultimate findings of the NIST and the 'official story', the very next post from a truther will be, "Who are they?".

Then, after a huge number of studies, official stances by respected scientific organizations, and actual lists with a large numbers of REAL scientists who worked on them is presented, the very next post will be "Well, I didn't hear them say anything", as if top scientists make a habit of attaching their names to projects that they know are full of crap.

I do apologize. I should have known.

[R.Mackey]

The honest thing would have been to laugh it off and say "fair cop... boy, that's funny, SoT", but no - the ingrained and typical response is to go back, change was what written and accuse the opponent of dishonesty.

How treacherous. Didn't ZENSMACK pull a similar stunt, once? That's the only other time I can recall seeing such deplorable behavior.

Let me first thank you for your long and considered response. Not that it was all for my benefit but thanks anyway. And yes I’m with you despite of it but let me ask you something.

Did the WTC burn down now?

If you have to ask such a question, you are not with me. Your question is too imprecise for a yes or no answer. Fire was a major contributor to both Tower collapses, but it was not the only ingredient. As to the hypothetical question of whether the fire alone could destroy the Towers, there is a difference of opinion among scientists. I believe the answer is "yes."

[ElMondoHummus]

If you have to ask such a question, you are not with me. Your question is too imprecise for a yes or no answer. Fire was a major contributor to both Tower collapses, but it was not the only ingredient. As to the hypothetical question of whether the fire alone could destroy the Towers, there is a difference of opinion among scientists. I believe the answer is "yes."

As I recall, Ryan, the ARUP as well as the University of Edinburgh's fire researchers believe that's the case, that the fire alone was sufficient to bring the towers down in the absence of impact damage.

I think Astaneh-Asl believes this too... I have to go look again.

[R.Mackey]

As I recall, Ryan, the ARUP as well as the University of Edinburgh's fire researchers believe that's the case, that the fire alone was sufficient to bring the towers down in the absence of impact damage.

I think Astaneh-Asl believes this too... I have to go look again.

I've commented on this before, but among published results, Arup believes fireproofing damage but not impact structural damage is required for collapse. Dr. Quintiere believes neither impact nor fireproofing damage is required. Purdue believes neither is probably required. So far as I know only NIST has concluded that, with lighter impact and fireproofing damage, the fires would burn out without inducing collapse.

In my opinion, NIST's study does offer some advantages over any of the other studies, although its assumptions may be excessively conservative. However, while I agree with NIST that they wouldn't have collapsed as fast without impact damage, I believe they would nonetheless have eventually collapsed.

All of the studies have their own special features and are worth reading. If I had to pick one, my opinions are closest to Purdue's, although they're still not finished.

[Profanz]

And here we have another brilliant example of tactics, apart from the Sword_of_Truth was mimicing. Historical revision, and basic dishonesty.

No one was trying to pull anything but Sword_of_Truth trying to change the subject.

I can confirm that the original quote was "Sounds like a hair commercial."

Yeah like anyone needs you to confirm anything. All they have to do is read the time stamp. He wanted a retraction so I clarified and told him to go back and check.

The honest thing would have been to laugh it off and say "fair cop... boy, that's funny, SoT", but no - the ingrained and typical response is to go back, change was what written and accuse the opponent of dishonesty.

The honest thing for you to do is act like a real moderator. Thanks for letting me expose the lack of valid arguments around here with lame attempts to focus on the difference between "hair" and "hair products". I guess that's not a derail though huh Moderator?

[theauthor]

No one was trying to pull anything but Sword_of_Truth trying to change the subject.



Yeah like anyone needs you to confirm anything. All they have to do is read the time stamp. He wanted a retraction so I clarified and told him to go back and check.



The honest thing for you to do is act like a real moderator. Thanks for letting me expose the lack of valid arguments around here with lame attempts to focus on the difference between "hair" and "hair products". I guess that's not a derail though huh Moderator?

You are absolutely right but please don't get yourself banned. It's what they want.

[chillzero]

No one was trying to pull anything but Sword_of_Truth trying to change the subject.

He was making a good point that sailed right over your head.

All they have to do is read the time stamp. He wanted a retraction so I clarified and told him to go back and check.

Why lie?
You were caught out because you couldn't just admit you worded something poorly, and now you're digging your hole even deeper.

The honest thing for you to do is act like a real moderator. Thanks for letting me expose the lack of valid arguments around here with lame attempts to focus on the difference between "hair" and "hair products". I guess that's not a derail though huh Moderator?

Please point to anywhere in this thread where I have posted as a moderator.
You haven't exposed anything except your willingness to use dishonest tactics to try and push your argument. Nice.

[chillzero]

You are absolutely right but please don't get yourself banned. It's what they want.

over react much? I don't see anything from Profanz that would lead him/her anywhere close to a banning.
Good grief... not even a suspension yet... or even a warning that I can see.

There are better ways for you to welcome people to the forum than these ridiculous over-reactions and tidings of DOOOOOOMMM! :rolleyes:

[chillzero]

oh, theauthor... did you miss post #64?

[theauthor]

oh, theauthor... did you miss post #64?

No I saw it.

This thread was started to ask TAm to back up a claim he made in another thread. I asked him in the other thread for a source for this claim. My request stands.

[1337m4n]

In another thread, TAM made the following definitive statement




Despite me asking for a source, he has provided no evidence. In this thread he can explain why complete collapse must happen.

Didn't NIST cover this?

Anyway, let's try some simple logic:

1) The force of gravity does not change.
2) Once the upper floors of WTC started moving, gravity continued to act on them.
3) The impact floors could not hold the static load.
4) By denying that global collapse was inevitable, you are essentially saying it could have just stopped midway.

Now, how much kinetic energy did the falling mass have, and what would it take to arrest its motion?

Some calculations should bring you to the conclusion that TAM is right; suffice to say, do your own homework before making such threads.

[chillzero]

No I saw it.

This thread was started to ask TAm to back up a claim he made in another thread. I asked him in the other thread for a source for this claim. My request stands.

.... even though your question has been answered a few times by others. That's ... admirable. :rolleyes:

Also, the claim you mentioned that I quoted in post 64 was not the one from the OP. Are you admitting you were wrong in claiming that TAM said anything about the world's experts? Are you retracting your stupid commetn about 'all' the world's experts?

[theauthor]

.... even though your question has been answered a few times by others. That's ... admirable. :rolleyes:

Also, the claim you mentioned that I quoted in post 64 was not the one from the OP. Are you admitting you were wrong in claiming that TAM said anything about the world's experts? Are you retracting your stupid commetn about 'all' the world's experts?

I never claimed TAM said anything about the worlds experts.

My question has not been answered in this thread.

Why do you keep coming in to threads I am involved in and lying about me?

I know I cant actually put you on ignore, but any more and I will ignore you.

[SpitfireIX]

Well, how about let's start with the contributors to the NIST, go to the University of Purdue...oh wait. You believe that any expert who hasn't explicitly come out in favor of the 'official story' just may think it was an inside job but is afraid to come out and say it. . . .


*cough*

[DGM]

I never claimed TAM said anything about the worlds experts.

My question has not been answered in this thread.

Why do you keep coming in to threads I am involved in and lying about me?

I know I cant actually put you on ignore, but any more and I will ignore you.

Although I have you on ignore I though you should know. You can put Chillzero the forum poster on ignore.

Also Your question was answered. TAM made a statement that you asked for a source. The source is TAM. His evidence is because that is what he believes. If you don't like it prove him wrong It's that simple.

Back to ignore.

ETA Ignoring Chillzero the mod will get you suspended.

ETA I am wrong. I saw it as an option when you click on her name. I just tried it and it's not allowed. I hang my head in shame and admit my mistake. (proof I'm not a "truther")

[chillzero]

I never claimed TAM said anything about the worlds experts.

Really? Hmm.. let's review that ....

theauthor the world's experts are against you; they must be in on the plot.

Name them.

<reminds you of list> Howzzat?

That is all the worlds experts? What have they specifically said about global collapse?

Now. All theauther has to do is find a respected structural engineering or demolitions organization anywhere on Earth that has a collective opinion that the the 'official story' of the WTC collapse is impossible we will be getting somewhere.

TAMs claim, TAMs burden.

I'm not the one lying. If you are fed up being shown up, then try being more considered in your responses, and honest in your approach.


My question has not been answered in this thread.

Yes it has. It's just that it has not been answered by TAM, although a few people have told why waiting for TAM's answer is not the best approach, and how to get the answers you want if you are actually serious in wanting to learn something, and not just trolling for kicks. Check back with that experts list again... and my comment to you in post 24 about doing your own homework.

Why do you keep coming in to threads I am involved in and lying about me?

I'm not the one who is lying. Show me any lie I have stated.
As for coming into threads... you do realise that I am a member of this forum, don't you.. and therefore totally entitled to post in any threads I want to?

I know I cant actually put you on ignore, but any more and I will ignore you.

I can completely understand why you would want to pretend my posts don't exist. :)
I'm sure everyone else does as well. It's ok. I've told you the options before... you could try just admitting when you are wrong. You could try examining your bias and how it affects your views on 911. Or you could trundle onward making silly statements, and tripping yourself up hoping no one will notice.

[theauthor]

Ok, ignore it is!

[chillzero]

lol

[Russ_Dalton]

Just what physics, structural engineering, evidence, and forensic science told them.

Any questions, author?

How did they rule out the hypothesis that fires due to explosives and bombs weakened the building brought down the WTCs?
(Eyewitnesses/firefighters talked about bombs and explosives)

[kookbreaker]

(Eyewitnesses/firefighters talked about bombs and explosives)

No they did not. They talked about explosions, which happen during fires. Please stop repeating this age-old debunked nonsense.

Read the following links to see why you have been repeating a lie.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheyheard
http://911myths.com/html/accounts_of_explosions.html

[tsig]

That is all the worlds experts? What have they specifically said about global collapse?

Asked and answered.

[BenBurch]

No I saw it.

This thread was started to ask TAm to back up a claim he made in another thread. I asked him in the other thread for a source for this claim. My request stands.

So its a disingenuous calling-out rather than an honest request for information?

About what we have all come to expect from you, I'm afraid.

[beachnut]

How did they rule out the hypothesis that fires due to explosives and bombs weakened the building brought down the WTCs?
(Eyewitnesses/firefighters talked about bombs and explosives)
The eyewitnesses did not say they were talking about explosives and bombs, you did that with you own brain. You made an error in analysis. Do you need help figuring out 9/11?If you use logic and reasoning you can do much better than spewing the lies of 9/11 truth.

Answer one: they ruled out explosive because there were no evidence of explosives found. Zip, Zero, Nothing. After 6 years, how can anyone miss that simple fact? ? Keep the simple questions coming, wish my teachers had asked questions like this.

Answer two: they used their brains! 9/11 truth should try using something similar...

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Ok, ignore it is!


Chillzero, you've just been ignored by "theauthor". What are you going to do now? :D

[BenBurch]

Chillzero, you've just been ignored by "theauthor". What are you going to do now? :D

I have some cold champaign...

[bje]

No they did not. They talked about explosions, which happen during fires. Please stop repeating this age-old debunked nonsense.

Read the following links to see why you have been repeating a lie.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheyheard
http://911myths.com/html/accounts_of_explosions.html

Plus there is no such hypothesis as the poster claimed. None. Zero.

[Elizabeth I]

Don't go back and change what you wrote to save yourself from embarrassment.

Oh, no, he didn't...did he?

You are absolutely right but please don't get yourself banned. It's what "THEY" want.

Fixed that for you.

[gc051360]

Ok, ignore it is!

haha.

The answer to your question is available. Why don't you care?

eta: The thing that always annoys me about truthers, is they're so quick to "ask questions", but never bother to look for the answers. And when they are given the answers...they ignore them, and then ask the same question again and again.

[chillzero]

Chillzero, you've just been ignored by "theauthor". What are you going to do now? :D
oh noez!! :eek:

hehe

I think I'll sit back and enjoy the brief respite from throwing the spotlight on such blatent errors, dishonesty and lack of logic. :cool:
You know, Darat was right... I have been away from posting as a member for far too long. I think I'll change that now. Dipping more than my toes back in the water this time was pretty rewarding.


I have some cold champaign...

:alc:


Oh, no, he didn't...did he?


Unfortunatly, yes, s/he did.
Then lied about it.

[TraneWreck]

That is all the worlds experts? What have they specifically said about global collapse?

One would imagine that when asking for a source, once that source is provided the requestor should actually read them before commenting.

I also love the line of reasoning that requires every structural engineer or demolitions expert in the world to call a press conference and announce that they agree with NIST. Like evolution and global warming, you can tell there's a world-wide scientific consensus because no credible criticisms make it through the peer-review process.

But of course, the peer review process is corrupt, and Dick Cheney decides who looks at which grad-school projects, blah, blah, blah. It's really laughable.

[T.A.M.]

Something is wrong with the forum settings, as I can now see threads created by people on ignore, yet their posts are not viewable (thank god).

For the sake of this truther, please tell him (or he can read it) that I have had him on ignore for over a month now.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

and by the way, I am not going to address any whining questions or complaints from someone I have on ignore, so you might as well pack this one in theauthor.

TAM:)

[theauthor]

Ah TAM has me on ignore. I can understand why he would want to pretend that my posts dont exist lol

[BenBurch]

Ah TAM has me on ignore. I can understand why he would want to pretend that my posts dont exist lol

Maybe because, even though that might be a totally false impression left by the lamentable effect of American public schools on your command of the English Language, you appear to be an insulting supercilious buffoon whose argumentation style is one of gainsaying, misrepresentation, hand-waving, and disingenuous asking of questions whose answers are already known even to you and for which you really don't want the answers anyway?

Could that be the reason?

If so, perhaps you ought to consider how to correct this totally false impression of yourself that your words leave in the minds of virtually everybody here, Paul.

[WildCat]

Maybe because, even though that might be a totally false impression left by the lamentable effect of American public schools on your command of the English Language,
Paul is English, from Manchester.

[CptColumbo]

Paul is English, from Manchester.As if I didn't have enough reasons to root for the Hammers.

[BenBurch]

Paul is English, from Manchester.

Oh, that is even more sad. I had thought the English were better schooled than we are. :boggled:

[Tomblvd]

Ah TAM has me on ignore. I can understand why he would want to pretend that my posts dont exist lol


Why would that be?

After your disasterous thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3778354#post3778354)last nite, I'd think you'd want to pretend this entire forum didn't exist. You accused someone of lying, and made other demands for proof that were met, and then you disappeared. How about going back and answering the posts?

[mrbaracuda]

AhAHAHaHAha
ahAhAhAhAhAh
AhAhAhahAhAh

Epic Fail.

[nicepants]

over react much? I don't see anything from Profanz that would lead him/her anywhere close to a banning.
Good grief... not even a suspension yet... or even a warning that I can see.

There are better ways for you to welcome people to the forum than these ridiculous over-reactions and tidings of DOOOOOOMMM! :rolleyes:

....ta must think that this forum is moderated the same way twoofer forums are ;-)