NIST's Fraudulent Report on the Collapse of WTC7 on 9/11 [W:2152,2510]

[ozeco41]

Youre trying mighty hard to avoid the fact that your derail is not relevant

SOP

If the effort put into missing the significant points and focussing on the insignificant was put into understanding....


...but that is unlikely to happen.

 

[Fledermaus]

Sorry to disagree a bit Fled but it would take more than "a few days of studying" to lift the poor understanding in BOTH physics and logical reasoning to the level where they can understand it for themselves. Whether it be from the position of most truthers stuck in Level 1 or 2 or those with high school physics at around Level 3.. "Understand for yourself" needs minimum level 4. And in real life it took all of us several years to get from grade/primary school (Levels 1 and 2 understanding) up to high school (level 3). And more years to reach graduate level. (Levels 4 >> 5 and higher come with experience and practice.) (Even "understand when others explain it" needs Level 3 - which is why I target my explanations for high school level - Level 3 .)

Koko's physics nonsense is both high school level (Level 3) AND wrong AND it is still at least one grade below understanding of WTC collapses. The partial truth assertions about lattices in the "Applying natural collapse engineering..." thread shows that - a bit of partial truth placed in a false representation of WTC collapse using lie by innuendo.

Remember also that there are engineers from both sides who are posting on other forums who get both details and basic concepts wrong. T Szamboti in both papers and forums. Prof Z Bazant does not take part on forums but a lot of debunkers engineers misuse the bits where he was correct or follow his erroneous papers into error. So it is not a game for easy understanding by those who lack the base expertise when some of those who have that expertise make such fundamental errors.

So gaining personal qualifications is unlikely to be a practical way forward. They will have to rely on those who understand and can explain - and no conspiracy theorist will take the first step of doubting their own pre-set opinion.

That said at the overall level of simplicity the "impact and fire damage" hypothesis for WTC1 and WTC2 remains unrebutted. But the truthers want to argue details which is where they get way out of their depth.

On the subject of explosives one would merely have to study how controlled demolitions are done, the capabilities and limitations of common explosives and an understanding of the results of setting off explosives in an urban area.

Hate to minimize my field, but explosives ain't rocket science.

The proper application of explosives to meet a specific goal may require expertise, but understanding explosives in general is levels lower in the hierarchy.

Take the "molten steel proves a controlled demolition" claim. Or the "drywall muffled the explosives" claim. Or the "nano-thermite blew up the buildings" nonsense.

None of those require elevated knowledge (in my opinion).

But we have folks at the Hollywood/comic-book level.

People who believe explosives create massive fireballs (a la Hollywood).

People who believe "squibs" can compromise structural members.

People who believe explosives result in molten metal.

 

[Fledermaus]

In other words, we are dealing with folks that don't even know they don't know.

 

[Mark F]

In other words, we are dealing with folks that don't even know they don't know.

:applaud

 

[Quag]

Hate to minimize my field, but explosives ain't rocket science.

Well rocket science done poorly can be explosive

 

[Mark F]

 

[KokomoJojo]

Sorry to disagree a bit Fled but it would take more than "a few days of studying" to lift the poor understanding in BOTH physics and logical reasoning to the level where they can understand it for themselves. Whether it be from the position of most truthers stuck in Level 1 or 2 or those with high school physics at around Level 3.. "Understand for yourself" needs minimum level 4. And in real life it took all of us several years to get from grade/primary school (Levels 1 and 2 understanding) up to high school (level 3). And more years to reach graduate level. (Levels 4 >> 5 and higher come with experience and practice.) (Even "understand when others explain it" needs Level 3 - which is why I target my explanations for high school level - Level 3 .)

Koko's physics nonsense is both high school level (Level 3) AND wrong AND it is still at least one grade below understanding of WTC collapses. The partial truth assertions about lattices in the "Applying natural collapse engineering..." thread shows that - a bit of partial truth placed in a false representation of WTC collapse using lie by innuendo.

Remember also that there are engineers from both sides who are posting on other forums who get both details and basic concepts wrong. T Szamboti in both papers and forums. Prof Z Bazant does not take part on forums but a lot of debunkers engineers misuse the bits where he was correct or follow his erroneous papers into error. So it is not a game for easy understanding by those who lack the base expertise when some of those who have that expertise make such fundamental errors.

So gaining personal qualifications is unlikely to be a practical way forward. They will have to rely on those who understand and can explain - and no conspiracy theorist will take the first step of doubting their own pre-set opinion.

That said at the overall level of simplicity the "impact and fire damage" hypothesis for WTC1 and WTC2 remains unrebutted. But the truthers want to argue details which is where they get way out of their depth.

well thankfully we have you to set everyone right!

Hence your ROOSD pancake theory that doesnt even require finishing grade school physics to concoct.

Oh and btw, I am still waiting for your advanced physics that shows my physics is wrong.

I suppose the best comedy of all is that you claim to have superior physics and have shown no physics what so ever despite your claims against others who have shown physics. Do you think just maybe that might have something to do with your groupies are divorcing your theories in droves?

Its hilarious that he argues this thread: http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...gineering-theory-demolitions-w-1022-a-54.html here!

 

[Thoreau72]

He has the government on his side Koko. Doesn't that mean anything for him?

 

[ozeco41]

On the subject of explosives one would merely have to study how controlled demolitions are done, the capabilities and limitations of common explosives and an understanding of the results of setting off explosives in an urban area.

Hate to minimize my field, but explosives ain't rocket science.

The proper application of explosives to meet a specific goal may require expertise, but understanding explosives in general is levels lower in the hierarchy.

Take the "molten steel proves a controlled demolition" claim. Or the "drywall muffled the explosives" claim. Or the "nano-thermite blew up the buildings" nonsense.

None of those require elevated knowledge (in my opinion).

But we have folks at the Hollywood/comic-book level.

People who believe explosives create massive fireballs (a la Hollywood).

People who believe "squibs" can compromise structural members.

People who believe explosives result in molten metal.

I fully agree on all those bits. My "mini-rant" simply says even IF they understood any or all of the basic level facts they still would not be able to add them up - either in logic or physics. So they would still need "spoon feeding" AND would still reject it.

On the "explosive bangs" aspect alone I reckon half an hour on a demolition training range - let them actually hear real HE bangs and a few lengths of det cord.

Once heard never forgotten.



PS Throw in an ANFO demo and a bit of propellant level stuff. Those make noises closer to the sort of "explosive noises" that were around on 9/11 - the contrast "low explosive" to "high explosive" - vastly different sounds - is the bit that few if any of these truthers have heard.

 

[NWO_Spook]

nope, I understand perfectly what claim means.

*sigh* :roll:

Obviously you missed 'My' point.

No, just ignored it.

 

[ozeco41]

well thankfully we have you to set everyone right!

Aren't you lucky. There are several others who contribute more posts to correncting your nonsense. However all I do is post explanations which anyone can attempt to disprove OR improves. Since you have not done either you appears to be missing out.

Hence your ROOSD pancake theory that doesnt even require finishing grade school physics to concoct.

For the umpteenth time it isn't my "ROOSD theory". It is Major_Tom's. Mine is better. And your repeated attempts at characterising by using the term "pancake" won't fool me. Anyone else - be warned - Koko is playing games with ambiguous word meanings.

HOWEVER - everyone mark this in your diaries. Koko is right. The explanation of the global (progression) collapses of the "Twin Towers" does not need high level physics. The visual evidence is clear for all to see and sufficient to prove the mechanism. When I first put forward my explanation back in 2008 I did use "ball park" estimation sort of physics. When you have 10 -20 -50 times overloads applied dynamically it is clear that the impacts are overwhelming. BUT IIRC Koko recently claimed to not understand "massive overload". And that is very low level physics. Grade school I suggest. I'd be prepared to put this question to any primary school 4-5-6 class "If you put far too much weight on something will it break?" And Koko denies that - actually claims he doesn't understand it.

Oh and btw, I am still waiting for your advanced physics that shows my physics is wrong.

Since you abandon - run away - evade every time we start on the basic physics the chance of me ever needing to explain more advanced stuff for you is remote.

I suppose the best comedy of all is that you claim to have superior physics and have shown no physics what so ever despite your claims against others who have shown physics.

True to form that is false. Whenever I assert facts I can explain them and and often do with reasoned supporting arguments. You neither explain your assertions nor present reasoned support.

Do you think just maybe that might have something to do with your groupies are divorcing your theories in droves?

Dream on.

Its hilarious that he argues this thread: http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...gineering-theory-demolitions-w-1022-a-54.html here!

Thanks for the link - it leads to examples of your evasions and running away.

 

[Kanzaki]

and debunkers are trying mighty hard to...

I've made strides at length to address my points in the simplest way possible. To his credit while Bman may be trying to avoid addressing the argument he at least doesn't spend his entire life devoted to drive by ad hom attacks, which is why he will get a reasonably serious response from me on a predictable basis and you... will be ignored until you clean up your act. Thanks.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Aren't you lucky. There are several others who contribute more posts to correncting your nonsense. However all I do is post explanations which anyone can attempt to disprove OR improves. Since you have not done either you appears to be missing out. For the umpteenth time it isn't my "ROOSD theory". It is Major_Tom's. Mine is better. And your repeated attempts at characterising by using the term "pancake" won't fool me. Anyone else - be warned - Koko is playing games with ambiguous word meanings.

HOWEVER - everyone mark this in your diaries. Koko is right. The explanation of the global (progression) collapses of the "Twin Towers" does not need high level physics. The visual evidence is clear for all to see and sufficient to prove the mechanism. When I first put forward my explanation back in 2008 I did use "ball park" estimation sort of physics. When you have 10 -20 -50 times overloads applied dynamically it is clear that the impacts are overwhelming. BUT IIRC Koko recently claimed to not understand "massive overload". And that is very low level physics. Grade school I suggest. I'd be prepared to put this question to any primary school 4-5-6 class "If you put far too much weight on something will it break?" And Koko denies that - actually claims he doesn't understand it. Since you abandon - run away - evade every time we start on the basic physics the chance of me ever needing to explain more advanced stuff for you is remote. True to form that is false. Whenever I assert facts I can explain them and and often do with reasoned supporting arguments. You neither explain your assertions nor present reasoned support. Dream on. Thanks for the link - it leads to examples of your evasions and running away.

Thats the problem with it ozeco41, your ROOSD pancake theory doesnt require any physics, engineering, or knowledge about the tower beyond "it fell down". Hey! you push it, you wear it, its your theory.

The visual evidence is clear! No the rest of us dont have a vivid imagination and xray vision like you do Oz.

That is your whole argument, "it fell down prove me wrong"!

Any 10 year old can make that same conclusion without ever learning how to spell physics! LMAO

I can certainly understand why you want to distance yourself from ROOSD at this point! Blame it all on to tom.

Oh would you rather I say open office pancake theory? LMAO

Get it right Oz, YOUR ROOSD pancake theory does not need anything more than high school physics. Stop posting lies about me.

Massive is NO PHYSICS! DUH!

Good post Oz, truthers you watching this?

Massive? Lies, koko was laughing his ass off at the debunker that posted that bottom of the gene pool stoopidity. Only huggers who have no clue post dimensionless drama and expect scientific minds to accept that trash. You are posting flat out lies about me now.


Yep thats the level ROOSD pancake is at, too much hit and it breaks. Great scientific analysis, that a no bell prize forsure. OMG

The scam has been exposed and you cant put that rabbit back in the hat oz.

If you ever get to a point where you can actually come up with reasoned arguments to support your ROOSD pancake theory I will respond, otherwise there is no point because you have not made a point.


http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...-demolitions-w-1022-a-108.html#post1064067876

I am not going to hold my breath however until I see a real engineer shine around, someone who can advance the debate beyond "it faw down prove me wrong".

 

[BmanMcfly]

SOP

If the effort put into missing the significant points and focussing on the insignificant was put into understanding....


...but that is unlikely to happen.

Of course it's significant... You do understand cause and effect right? You do understand that sound travels significantly slower than light, right?

You do know that sound, in a collapse, would occur as a result of movement, collisions, and structure breaking apart, right?

So, explain why it's insignificant that before any movement, the sound of "collapse" would precede the collapse by 2+ seconds?

Now, I'm not asking for another false-logic session with oz, I'm looking for you to address these very simple and direct questions that you claim are irrelevant. Don't just tell me it's irrelevant demonstrate why it's irrelevant.

 

[NWO_Spook]

Thats the problem with it ozeco41, your ROOSD pancake theory doesnt require any physics, engineering, or knowledge about the tower beyond "it fell down". Hey! you push it, you wear it, its your theory.

Do you ever bother to read what people post before you go off on a rant? It is not Oz's theory, it was posited by Major Tom, and those who visit JREF would know that. Furthermore, you deliberately misrepresent what Oz posted in your typically dishonest fashion. When will you ever grow up? I take the time with you because I know your idiot act is just that, an act, but please try for once to behave like an adult and actually address what is in front of you instead of continually making men of straw and spreading infantile lies.

 

[ozeco41]

Of course it's significant... You do understand cause and effect right? You do understand that sound travels significantly slower than light, right?

You do know that sound, in a collapse, would occur as a result of movement, collisions, and structure breaking apart, right?

Why don't you:
1) Stop patronising. Accept that I comprehend physics at least as well as most other members posting here.
2) Stop missing the point and trying to build arguments on false foundations.

HOWEVER

So, explain why it's insignificant that before any movement, the sound of "collapse" would precede the collapse by 2+ seconds?

you claim that it is significant - you show why it is. I'm well aware of the obvious direction you will probably head in. I'll save you a couple of posts. My answers to your next questions - if I give them - will refer to "weight of evidence".

Now, I'm not asking for another false-logic session with oz,...

you cannot have "another" BEFORE you have "the first one". I have many times commented on errors in your logic. So far you have not shown one of my explanations to be wrong. I don't think you have even tried seriously. Why not give it a go - we could lift the discussion out of the gutter where every post from one side contains insults based on false premises.

I'm looking for you to address these very simple and direct questions that you claim are irrelevant. Don't just tell me it's irrelevant demonstrate why it's irrelevant.

Put forward an explicit defined example and I may respond. Remember I'm the one with the record of direct specific reasoned rebuttals of properly made claims. Play seriously and I will respect that. BUT I'm not particularly interested in chasing derail detail claims which are multiple levels remote from significance in 9/11 discussion. Many other members are willing to do that. And have.

 

[ozeco41]

I've made strides at length to address my points in the simplest way possible. To his credit while Bman may be trying to avoid addressing the argument he at least doesn't spend his entire life devoted to drive by ad hom attacks, which is why he will get a reasonably serious response from me on a predictable basis and you... will be ignored until you clean up your act. Thanks.

Agreed - I have recently deliberately chosen to break my "ignore Koko" rule to present him specific detailed responses to his questions AND reasoned explanations of some aspects of the base level physics for the WTC Twin Towers collapses. He simply ignores the reasoning, repeats the same nonsense I have rebutted/rejected and tells lies about me and what I posted.

Clearly discussion on such an irrational basis is not possible - I will continue to occasionally rebut his nonsense for the benefit of other members.

In contrast I've made numerous responses to Bman - responding to sections of reasoned claims in his posts. BUT when presented by reasoned counter claim he invariably changes focus. See the latest example in recent posts in this thread.

 

[KokomoJojo]

On the "explosive bangs" aspect alone I reckon half an hour on a demolition training range - let them actually hear real HE bangs and a few lengths of det cord.

Once heard never forgotten.


PS Throw in an ANFO demo and a bit of propellant level stuff. Those make noises closer to the sort of "explosive noises" that were around on 9/11 - the contrast "low explosive" to "high explosive" - vastly different sounds - is the bit that few if any of these truthers have heard.

yeh transformers right?

 

[KokomoJojo]

PS Throw in an ANFO demo and a bit of propellant level stuff. Those make noises closer to the sort of "explosive noises" that were around on 9/11 - the contrast "low explosive" to "high explosive" - vastly different sounds - is the bit that few if any of these truthers have heard.

How about that, I do agree on this point to the extent that 'generally' one can tell the difference. /od

so what kind of an explosive made the sound in the previously posted clip?

HE or LE?

 

[BmanMcfly]

Why don't you:
1) Stop patronising. Accept that I comprehend physics at least as well as most other members posting here.
2) Stop missing the point and trying to build arguments on false foundations.

Well, I thought you'd use your god like knowledge of physics to express how the sound began before the collapse...

HOWEVER

you claim that it is significant - you show why it is. I'm well aware of the obvious direction you will probably head in. I'll save you a couple of posts. My answers to your next questions - if I give them - will refer to "weight of evidence".
you cannot have "another" BEFORE you have "the first one". I have many times commented on errors in your logic. So far you have not shown one of my explanations to be wrong. I don't think you have even tried seriously. Why not give it a go - we could lift the discussion out of the gutter where every post from one side contains insults based on false premises.

Put forward an explicit defined example and I may respond. Remember I'm the one with the record of direct specific reasoned rebuttals of properly made claims. Play seriously and I will respect that. BUT I'm not particularly interested in chasing derail detail claims which are multiple levels remote from significance in 9/11 discussion. Many other members are willing to do that. And have.

Oh... you didn't even try. Somehow I'm not surprised. So, I'll take the attack in the logic alone as a concession that anything you would have said would be indefensible.

I put a very explicit and defined situation... it's you beating around the Bush right now.

YOU CAME IN making claims about how the facts were irrelevant... you can't or won't explain why.... AND THEN IT'S ME. THAT IS SUPPOSED TO "get serious"?

Remember a time, before your analysis got called into question, where you used to respond honestly? I do. I also remember that the situation ended when YOU started playing these ridiculous games topped with attempted gas lighting at every turn. Haven't you noticed that the trick doesn't work with me? You've only been called on it about a dozen times or more.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Well, I thought you'd use your god like knowledge of physics to express how the sound began before the collapse...

HOWEVER

Oh... you didn't even try. Somehow I'm not surprised. So, I'll take the attack in the logic alone as a concession that anything you would have said would be indefensible.

I put a very explicit and defined situation... it's you beating around the Bush right now.

YOU CAME IN making claims about how the facts were irrelevant... you can't or won't explain why.... AND THEN IT'S ME. THAT IS SUPPOSED TO "get serious"?

Remember a time, before your analysis got called into question, where you used to respond honestly? I do. I also remember that the situation ended when YOU started playing these ridiculous games topped with attempted gas lighting at every turn. Haven't you noticed that the trick doesn't work with me? You've only been called on it about a dozen times or more.

Completely hog tied and awol from the "applying natural collapse engineering theory to demolitions" thread! Another indefensible position he took. Logically of course.

He wants to spoonfeed train everyone (not on his team) how to tell what different explosions sound like, (shot himself in the foot again) and when asked to do so back to awol. Always making claims and backing them up with innuendo, if even that much.

 

[Kanzaki]

Well, I thought you'd use your god like knowledge of physics to express how the sound began before the collapse...

The deciding component is the lack of sound that can be directly attributed to explosives, end of story; not when you think the sounds took place. If there were explosives going off at any point in time, it would create a decisive noise level regardless of any perceived time delay you can think of. This is why your derail about the speed of sound and your insistence on sticking to it is utterly absurd and stupid and will not be taken seriously. The most critical factor is still missing and you derail avoids it like the plague,; it's nothing but a sloppy excuse to force a theory in that doesn't fit after you're argument that these explosive noise levels could be dampened was shown to be impossible on the basis of your unfamiliarity with design. Yes, people are going to point that out and I certainly won't mince words over it.

Also, you can continue claiming that your derail has not been addressed. Maybe you don't like the conclusions... not really my concern.

 

[KokomoJojo]

The deciding component is the lack of sound that can be directly attributed to explosives, end of story; not when you think the sounds took place. If there were explosives going off at any point in time, it would create a decisive noise level regardless of any perceived time delay you can think of. This is why your derail about the speed of sound and your insistence on sticking to it is utterly absurd and stupid and will not be taken seriously. The most critical factor is still missing and you derail avoids it like the plague,; it's nothing but a sloppy excuse to force a theory in that doesn't fit after you're argument that these explosive noise levels could be dampened was shown to be impossible on the basis of your unfamiliarity with design. Yes, people are going to point that out and I certainly won't mince words over it.

Also, you can continue claiming that your derail has not been addressed. Maybe you don't like the conclusions... not really my concern.

I can hear an he explosion just fine why ignore this: http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...c7-9-11-w-2152-2510-a-139.html#post1064070562

Oz is supposed to be here to weigh in but I fully expect he wont.

What do you think that sound is a transformer? how come truthers are the only ones who can hear explosions are all debunkers and huggers deaf?

shown by whom? that ludicrous! if you used about 200 cubic miles of pillows you could dampen the sound of an a bomb FFS.

 

[KokomoJojo]

He has the government on his side Koko. Doesn't that mean anything for him?

yeh 10 demerits!

 

[Fledermaus]

Well, I thought <snipped>

No, you didn't.

Explosions at times consistent with controlled demolition? No. You have to be MILES AWAY to "hear" these explosions that WERE NOT caught close up and personal. That is simply wrong on so many levels.

Explosions loud enough to be controlled demolition? No. And please, none of the "nano-thermite" or "thermite" garbage.

The blast one would expect from explosions of this magnitude? No.

Explosions in places consistent with controlled demolition? No, stairwells and basement are not, and never were consistent. Nor are charges chucked up in the cieling tiles.

The barotrauma that would result in explosions in a controlled demolition of this magnitude? No signs of that, eh?.

The seismic signatures for explosions of this magnitude? Not seeing it.

The shattered windows for blocks around the WTC? Didn't happen. It did in OKC.

Not one single shred of physical evidence found by the FBI or the thousands that sifted through the debris of the WTC.





Not looking good for the CD crowd, eh?