WTC Collapses

You have any evidence that others are doing my thinking for me?

Again, do you have any evidence to support that claim?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

None of those things makes him a structural engineer. The behavior of collapsing buildings and the chemicals within those buildings is not his area of expertise. Stop being a religious fanatic and just see that what I am saying is correct. His specialty was cold fusion not structural engineering. If you would just concede and say that it is wasn’t very important I might think you had an ounce of integrity but instead you just keep arguing the point. It's not his area of expertise.

No you are still being obtuse. I have devoted many posts to criticising Jones in this and the other thread. You pretend that you never see them and then ask me “why do you think Jones is a bad scientist”, expecting me to summarize the whole thing over again. I’m not going to summarise everything over again every time you are trying to dodge an issue.

Who? Someone impartial no doubt? Good science requires you to try and falsify your own theories. Perhaps he gave a sample to some skeptics?

I said a reputable scientist. .. one with relevant qualifications. It will probably never happen as Jones doesn’t want his religion to be seen to disintegrate.

You are a religious fanatic. So the answer is no he makes no attempt to falsify his claims.

So no he can’t demonstrate that the spheres aren’t part of the clean up or the construction…

Could you show me a confirmed case of thermite arson?

Jones uses this in his papers.

“EPA’s Erik Swartz stated that 1,3-DPP was present at levels “that dwarfed all others.” Swartz went on to say—“We’ve never observed it in any sampling we’ve ever done” (Garrett 2003).”

http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-hsair0911,0,471193.story?coll=ny-homepage-right-area

He uses that quote to imply that there is something out of the ordinary in their samples.

He never cuts out the next part.


“One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done," Swartz said. He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers.”

He does not even address the comment made by Swartz he just takes the part he wants and ignores the rest.

I believe he is still using that quote and used it in the Environmentalist paper.

That paper demonstrates how he will ignore the scientific process when he has a belief in something.

So do I.

and I am suggesting that thermite may have been responsible for the Titanic. I’m sure I could find quotes from the designers where it was supposed to be unsinkable. Yet it sank. How suspicious is that? The official story is full of holes

There is as much evidence for thermite on the titanic as there is for the Madrid tower. Your speculation is no less absurd than mine.

Are you going to try and imply that every steel structure that collapsed due to fire was actually brought down by thermite? I wouldn’t be surprised if you did.

Or it could be a transformer exploding or a lift crashing to the basement or many other things.

They will never construct a high rise like the WTC again.

Yes. I know. We discussed it about two pages ago. ? How is that relevant now? Do you just throw these things out there hoping they will equate to a response?

Were they designed differently they might still be standing.

So are you saying the explosives softened the steel or not? What caused the steel to get soft and weaken?

The fire? Explosives? Ultrathermite?

So stop saying that I have ignored them.

What is the point of that site? It is just a selective replication of this forum.

A building? That’s a barge. It’s only a few stories tall and its already extremely damaged. You are scraping the bottom of a barrel there.

But I will stop saying that top down demolitions never happen. Apparently they have, although the building was not similar.

However that demolition however still shares little in common with the WTC collapses. The collapse has not started at a floor near the top and collapsed one by one all the way down.

This evidence has been examined and found to be manure.

I find your tactics far more offensive than a few insults. Calling you are religious fanatic is not much of an insult either.

But if you stop being obtuse, show some integrity and honesty and you not see any of these words which distress you so much.

No. I’m saying that there was only one urban activist is not the point.

You almost seem to get it and then you stray off into your own world again. They have padded the list out haven’t they? Just admit it.

Yes but they are not authorities on the collapse of buildings! Those that are in that field disagree with them. It is an fallacious appeal to numbers. Looking at some of the comments in the list it sounds like they have done hardly any research at all anyway.

I wouldn’t want you to make any case for me.

That it is even considered, is comedy.

The logic you applied to come to the conclusion that a missile hit the pentagon?
:shrug:

They don’t certify the components. They don’t certify the steel, they certify the assemblies. You can try and twist the words around but you would still be wrong.

If the assemblies are twisted and damaged, and the fireproofing has been removed then their rating is no longer relevant. Get it?

The company spokesman said he was fired because he “"expressed his own opinions as though they were institutional opinions and beliefs of UL."

"The contents of the argument itself are spurious at best, and frankly, they're just wrong,"

Can you produce any evidence that contradicts that?

No investigation would ever be enough in the eyes of you religious fanatics. If another investigation happened and nothing was found you would never waver from your faith. Evidence and reason mean nothing to you.

So you are just repeating my posts back to me now?

Your dishonesty is obvious to any reasonable person reading these threads.

What? I am constantly pointing it out when you spam the same crap over and over.

You may not be playing.

If the areas without shielding were buckling and warping then logically all the columns would have done so if not shielded. You however will avoid logic because it is damaging to your faith.

Which has nothing at all to do with the Cardington fire tests. Are you even reading these posts?

So after that pathetic attempt at a rebuttal are you going to concede that office fires can reach temperatures near 1000C? Are you going to keep spamming irrelevant quotes?

You have made no mention of Kenny's tests either.

You are a deluded fanatic who will comfortably go through life convinced that you have debunked everything regardless of the reality.

Once again you bring up the paint samples. This has been explained to you five or six times. Very few of the samples came from the impact areas.


“In other words, of the 229 pieces of WTC 1 and 2 steel, only nine were column fragments from the impact zones, and of those, only four were in the interior. Since the exterior pieces understandably would have been cooler by convection with outside air and their placement at the edge of the fires, we are more interested in the core column fragments.”

Regarding the flashovers….

"This is wrong. To demonstrate the errors above, we will use the temperature data from Appendix C of NCSTAR1-5E, which is both representative of an ordinary fire and well suited to the situation in the WTC Towers. Mr. Hoffman here again complains about the “megawatt super-burner,” but the author reminds Mr. Hoffman that the “super-burner” was only active for the first 600 seconds of tests 1, 2, and 4, and the first 120 seconds of tests 3, 5, and 6. Readers may ignore these time periods if desired as they do not affect our conclusions, listed below:

Excepting only Test 5, thermocouples in Tree 2 experienced temperatures of over 800 oC for several minutes. In the case of Test 1, the period above 800 oC was over 20 minutes in duration. In tests 2 through 4, instrumentation was damaged by temperatures spiking above 1200 oC – and approaching 1600 oC in Test 2 – making a determination of duration impossible.

The lone exception, Test 5, was the test of “rubblized” workstations where combustible materials were collapsed, partially buried by ceiling tiles, and not provided additional ventilation. Lower temperatures are expected, but this case still produced gas temperatures of over 600 oC for roughly fifteen minutes.

· Thermocouples in Tree 3, located away from the burning workstations and thus less susceptible to damage, reported temperatures above 800 oC for at least ten minutes in all six tests. Readers are reminded that half of these tests involved no jet fuel, just ordinary office materials.
· These results directly contradict Mr. Hoffman’s claim, reprinted above, that temperatures above 800 oC are only produced for “a few seconds.”


Mr. Hoffman’s other mistakes in the excerpt above are as follows:

· In our discussion of Mr. Douglas’s claims in Appendix C of this whitepaper, we have criticized NIST on the basis that the jet fuel used in these tests – 4 L per workstation, as described on Page 8 of NCSTAR1-5E – was too little, approximately one third the amount expected to remain after the aircraft impact
and initial fireballs. Mr. Hoffman’s claim that “they must have had to pour on quite a lot of jet fuel” is in fact completely backwards. The author believes the amount was insufficient.
· The NIST Report does not imply, deceptively or otherwise, that there were sustained temperatures in excess of 1100 oC in the core. NIST’s estimates of gas temperatures are given in NCSTAR1-5F, and rarely exceed 700 oC in the core (the hottest example being Floor 96 of Case B). The temperatures and durations reported by NIST are totally consistent with the results of the compartment test in NCSTAR1-5E.”
-R.Mackey

So no you haven't debunked the high temperatures. Were you not aware that people had responded to your post in the other thread? No?

You spam the same rubbish over and over as if no one has ever pointed out the flaws in your “research”.

You either have a memory problem or you are intellectually dishonest.

You have posted nothing that contradicts the results of the Cardington tests. I understand that you will somehow avoid seeing this, as you are not a reasonable person. You have pretty much had evidence rammed down your throat but you still play games.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This post is in response to the 1st part of shaman_'s post 362 in this thread.

Steven Jones, Round 2, Part 1

Irrelevant.

Not initially, no. He has since became an expert on it, however.

He is now an expert in more then just muon catalyzed fusion.

I'm not pretending anything.

Just link to where you've countered my argument as I have in the past when you or someone else have repeated a claim I've already countered.

Reading over Steven Jones' "Revisiting 9/11/2001 --Applying the Scientific Method", I now believe that he may indeed have been the only scientist to actually test the samples he obtained. I was thinking of the following line:
"I traveled to her new residence in California and obtained a second small sample in the presence of other scientists."

Which makes it clear that other scientists were present we he obtained the second sample, but not that anyone else but Steven Jones tested it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

yes the paper states TWO FACTS here, firstly that 1,3 DPP has never before been observed in any sampling the EPA has done despite previously air sampling at plastic factory fires, and secondly that 1,3 DPP existed at much higher levels than any other chemical air pollutant, that is- it was the main pollutant detected. notice also that the paper gives a correct reference so the reader can examine any context that they might wish to explore.

I could have played a stupid word game and responded "he is not quoted saying that", but i'll leave such stupid games to the religious despisers.

it is out of the ordinary! - "We’ve never observed it in any sampling we’ve ever done". if it was ordinary, they would have sampled it many times in the past, but they NEVER SAMPLED IT BEFORE IN ANY SAMPLE THEY EVER DID.

Because the bolded part is opinion, not fact! (not to mention hearsay).

Science is about formulating opinions and theories from facts and observations, it is NOT formulating facts and theories from opinions!

what is all this about Jones has to falsify his own work? are you confusing the scientific term "falsifiable" with the word "falsify"?
look it up, you'll see what you say makes no sense.

no it doesn't. you have been deceived by a skeptic tactic - confusing facts with opinions.

 

he has publicly invited others to test the samples. The USGS and RJ Lee have their own samples.

why would he give any samples to "skeptics?" skeptics are not capable of scientific study. the best one can hope from a "skeptic" is that they dismiss the data as anomalous, the worst one can expect from a skeptic is outrageous speculation.

 

other than the fact that everything you posted has come from conspiracy websites, no.

other than you dismissing the evidence i provided, no.

 

This post is in response to the 2nd part of shaman_'s post 362 in this thread.

Steven Jones, Round 2, Part 2

With Headspin's help, I now see why I was confused. I believe what you wanted to say is if he determined if his claims were falsifiable. My own claim still stands- regardless of what he did or did not do in order to ascertain if his claims were falsifiable, there is a whole -army- of official story proponents who have tried to ascertain that his claims were unmerited and they have not yet been able to do it.

In regards to the cleanup, Arabesque, in his article "“Thermite Hypothesis” versus “Controlled Demolition Hypothesis”: a
response to “The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite
Hypothesis” ", pointed out these points:

1. Thermite is extremely dangerous; it cuts through steel like “a hot knife through butter.”
2. They were trying to find survivors; any cleanup was secondary to finding the victims.
3. Steven Jones has answered this question repeatedly in his
presentations. It appears that the authors have ignored this fact.18

Couldn't find one in my brief search. Will keep my eyes open. However, you may have noticed that no official body is denying that thermite arson is possible.

 

This post is in response to Headspin's post 365 in this thread.

I thought I remembered that, but didn't want to say it without a source

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

Ofcourse.. so many things to remember.

I'd be cautious to go this route. It seems to be the route that shaman_ takes with me, only in reverse- that I'm a 'religious fanatic' or some such. My father admires a magazine that I believe is called "the skeptic" (not sure if its site is http://www.skeptic.org.uk/ ) and I thoroughly enjoyed one of its articles on a subject that is dear to me. Ironically, I'm much more afraid of people who believe in something religiously and refuse to question it. shaman_, for all his bluster, actually doesn't fall into this category. I believe I once even said that he was obsessed with the official theory but if he was a -real- official story fanatic I doubt that he'd be here debating with us.

In any case, perhaps shaman_ will be satisfied that Steven Jones has given others the opportunity to test the samples and, perhaps more importantly, that he's not the only person who has samples which can be tested.

 

This post is in response to Headspin's post 364 in this thread.

Sounds like your criticizing shaman_ again, laugh ;-). I think you may be alluding to his comments that the New York times articles that stated that both Astaneh and Barnett had seen evidence of vaporized/evaporated steel hadn't been directly quoted.

Truthfully, it's not so much that I mind that shaman_ questions whether noted reporter James Glanz, who wrote one article and co-wrote the other and who is now Baghdad bureau chief of the New York Times, had properly interpreted the statements from Astaneh and Barnett. No, what -really- bothers me is that he feels it's not even worth an investigation. Apparently, if the mainstream media doesn't take note, then he feels that all is well in the world; a lot of people believed the official story regarding Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction too. Even though I didn't support the push to go to war, I too believed that Saddam may have had some. And then the stories started to come out... I must admit I'm curious to know if he was deeply surprised when the mainstream media began to admit that it was all a lot of hot air...

 

The use of the word ‘evaporate’ was contradicted by the very work of the people it supposedly came from. Don’t pretend that this is the same thing. The interpretation of that paraphrase doesn’t hinge on one word.

Out of the ordinary, as in no explanation for those results. It appears that there was probably a simple explanation.

It may certainly have been the first time they had results like that. Perhaps they had never sampled air after tens of thousands of computers burnt. Something happening for the first time is not a conspiracy. Jones however, leaps to the conclusion that thermite must have been responsible.

Oh come on. To use that quote and not even address the sentence after it is deceptive and you know it.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/falsify


falsify
One entry found.


Pronunciation:
\ˈfȯl-sə-ˌfī\
Function:
verb
Inflected Form(s):
fal•si•fied; fal•si•fy•ing
Etymology:
Middle English falsifien, from Middle French falsifier, from Medieval Latin falsificare, from Latin falsus
Date:
15th century
transitive verb 1: to prove or declare false : DISPROVE2: to make false: as a: to make false by mutilation or addition <the accounts were falsified to conceal a theft> b: to represent falsely : MISREPRESENT 3: to prove unsound by experience

I am using the word correctly. I see how it could cause confusion though, so I will rephrase. Jones appears to make little effort to test or disprove his own work. He doesn't seem interested in any mundane explanations for his work and the answer is always a thermite CD.

I am referring to his religiously inspired paper about Jesus visiting the Americas. His new religion is 911.

 

they sample air after all major fires, warehouses full of plastic computers and suchlike, so any notion of plastics producing this checmical has no evidence to support it.

noone is saying that something happening for the first time must mean a conspiracy! these false conclusions you keep attributing to scientific work only demonstrates your lack of understanding of the paper and the scientiific method.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/fulltext.pdf

the results of the air sampling supports the sol-gel nanothermite hypothesis, this is the scientific method at work. the more the observations support the hypothesis, the more a hypothesis solidifies into a theory. if you look collectively at the observations and see how they all support the thermite theory then Jones' theory looks very solid, but instead you deconstruct everything into smaller unconnected components and handwave each piece away as if another plausible (or implausible) explanation for each observation destroys the thermite theory - it doesn't! you are doing what all the other pseudo-skeptcis do, and it has nothing to do with the scientific method. what you are doing is filtering all information according to your fixed belief. it is you are acting in a religious manner. the old saying "tell a creationist about dinosaurs and they'll say god sent them to test us" applies to you and your fellow pseudo-skeptics who seem to think it is good to be skeptical - it isn't. it is good to question and research.

no, it is you that always leaps to hyperbolic conclusions, because without your exagerations your arguments don't work.
Professor Jones is demonstarting how the observations suppor the thermite theory. there is no leaping to conclusions.

clearly you haven't even read the paper, because if you had read it, you would have noticed that the paper does in fact address Swartz comment, so tell me now- what does it feel like to be lied to by your pious frenzied psuedo-skeptic denier religious fanatic buddies?

Swartz attributed the presence of 1,3-DPP to
polystyrene and other plastics, by stating
[1,3-DPP was] primarily found in the gas phase (with
90% of the mass found on the front denuder). Although
the source of the compound in this study is not known,
it may have formed during the combustion of polystyrene
or other polymers. 1,3-Diphenylpropane has
been found to co-occur with polystyrene plastics
(37, 38), so another possibility is that the compound
was already present and encapsulated in large volumes
of plastics in the buildings and was off-gassed during
the pulverization process. (Swartz et al. 2003)
However, the sources Swartz uses to support 1,3-DPP as
a combustion product of polystyrene are not studies of
polystyrene combustion, but of gasses released in the longterm
degradation of enclosed polystyrene food product
packaging.

little effort to test his own work? are you making this up as you go?
Jones has addressed all the major points brought up by the skeptics on a continuing basis to the point of wasting most of his time on it, unlike NIST and OCT scientists who deceptively dance around significant questions, and in some cases flat out lie.

ad hominem attacks are not part of the scientific method. all you are doing is weaking your own arguments by engaging in tactics of last resort.

 

This post is in response to the 3rd part of shaman_'s post 362 in this thread.

Bombs in the buildings, Round 2

Surely you're not going to the jet fuel managed to do all this?

Please. Has anyone -ever- doubted that the titanic was sunk by anything other then an iceburg?

I haven't heard anyone arguing that an iceburg couldn't have sunk the titanic. As to the Windsor tower in madrid, there does seem to be some who believe that arson may have been involved. If so, it's possible that thermite may have been part of that arson. No one to my knowledge has claimed this and certainly no one has claimed that thermate was involved, but I don't like ruling out possibilities without an adequate investigation. Which is why I believe that questioning whether the Windsor tower was analyzed for arson and even thermite arson are valid questions.

The only towers that I know that have suffered even partial collapse are the windsor tower and the WTC towers. The WTC towers were 100% steel framed, which would suggest that fires shouldn't have made them collapse at all if a jet and the ensuing relatively low level isolated fires were supposedly the only problem for each tower, and yet they collapsed completely.

It's my understand that the most likely explanation is that they were bombs.

What flaws did the design allegedly have?

I simply think it's a point that bears repeating.

Perhaps if they were enormous columns of steel; would be hard to get the explosives in that way I suppose

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Nope, I didn't say that. Headspin may have.

You may want to ask Headspin if he believes the explosives softened or weakened the steel instead of just cutting right through it and immensely bending and deforming it.

 

This post is in response to the 4th part of shaman_'s post 362 in this thread.

The twin towers characteristics: how they were like controlled demolitions and unlike destruction by fires, round 3

I mean in recent posts. Look, if you've already countered my points on my site, why can't you simply link to your counters?

I'm trying to distill the most important arguments for the controlled demolition hypothesis, as well as bring up issues that still need to be worked on.

As Headspin mentioned in post 222, it was a "steel framed multi storey floating casino that was washed inland by hurricane katrina". And if it were already extremely damaged, why the need for explosives at all?

They were both multi story buildings, atleast, unlike the Mccormick place warehouse, which had no 'core' per se and thus the roof cave in made much more sense; scientifically speaking, it's too bad it didn't have multiple stories as I think it would have resoundingly shown that the rest of the stories wouldn't have pancaked down at near free fall speed without the type of help that the casino had. This whole 'pancake collapse' theory has only been used once in all of history- on 911.

It's just a matter of setting the charges up a little differently.

Somewhere, out there, eh

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

?

 

This post is in response to the 5th part of shaman_'s post 362 in this thread.

The Luminaries of the 9/11 Truth Movement, Round 4

So you say. I have a feeling, however, that if you had found a 9/11 truther with characteristics such as yourself, however, the conversation would have turned into an insult fest and then died out due to a lack of a discussion of the relevant issues.

It's not as bad as 'idiot', 'moron' or 'stupid', but it's still pretty bad. I don't even belong to any religious institution. The least you could do is call me a 9/11 conspiracy fanatic, although as I've mentioned in another post, I think that's pretty off too. As far as I'm concerned, true fanatics aren't interested in debating with people who have opposing views. They're interested in 'easy prey', people who won't put up much resistance before succumbing to their mantras. shaman_, you are many things but one thing you are -not- is someone who's easy to persuade

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Surely, if I would just stop disagreeing with you, you'd be more civil

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Fortunately for this debate, I don't put any such conditions on you. Anyone who knows me knows that I am a person of high integrity and honesty. You, however, have only met me through this forum and so I'll let you off on that count.

 

This post is in response to the 6th part of shaman_'s post 362 in this thread.

The Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth site

Originally, you said there were urban activists. I'd forgotten that you'd mentioned it in the plural, however, and that slip almost went unnoticed. But most importantly, why did you bring up the urban activist if you felt that it was 'not the point'?

They have included all engineers. Even if the engineers in question have nothing to do with architecture (such as software engineers). That's not 'padding' anything, that's simply including all engineers. I have already stated that I think it would have been more meaningful to have a list of people who that only had architects and engineers with diplomas related to building design, but there's a difference between not selecting the best criteria and padding out a list with people who don't fit said criteria.

Alright, how about we simply agree that the criteria for their 'architects and engineers' list could have been better and not all 9/11 truthers (or official story believers for that matter) are as informed as they could be?

Then quit telling me to scan through your previous posts for information that you should be linking to yourself. Perhaps you're unaware of all the times I've repeated the same points over and over again to you and to others. That's fine. I will happily repeat them to you 100 times more if that's what it takes, or link to them if they're already nicely said in a previous post, as I've done before. Like a good lawyer, I don't expect you to make my case for me.

Do you feel the same way concerning thermate as well or is that possibility atleast a little more on the credible side for you now?

 

This post is in response to the 7th part of shaman_'s post 362 in this thread.

Kevin Ryan and his former employer Underwriter Laboratories, Round 4

I never said my logic was flawless. However, you will note that I dropped that theory when I felt that there wasn't enough evidence to support it.

Yes, yes, they certify the car not the car door. You think that's a victory for you? In all honesty, it would be far better for a 'we had nothing to do with it' argument if they had only tested the steel and not the assemblies. Atleast then they could say that it's possible the people who did the assemblies are the ones who were lax. The assemblies are the 'end of the line'- anything- whether it's the steel or the assembly of the steel components that's wrong, should be able to be seen at that point.

I've already shown you evidence that:
1- the fireproofing wasn't removed to any substantial degree.
2- even without fireproofing, even the initial floor wouldn't have done more then sag a bit.

He did nothing of the sort and has said as much. But the -real- tragedy here is that UL wanted to distance itself from his beliefs when they were so insightful.

Yep- it's included in this post (you won't have to search all of sciforums to find it

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

). If you disagree with what I've said before in this post (as you probably will), we'll take it up next post.

No investigation would ever be enough in the eyes of you religious fanatics. If another investigation happened and nothing was found you would never waver from your faith. Evidence and reason mean nothing to you.[/quote]

Ah, the all seeing shaman has spoken eh

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

? Tell me shaman_, why -did- you choose that nick?

If the shoe fits...

 

This post is in response to the 8th and final part of shaman_'s post 362 in this thread.

'Normal' office fire tests, Round 4

You know, perhaps I was being a little too charitable when I said that you weren't an official story fanatic. Not the worst of them to be sure, but fanatics tend to think that their claims are self evident, without a need for explanation...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I should have been more precise- I've never seen you acknowledge when I've pointed out your flawed reasoning.

Sigh...

I'm tired. I'll plead no contest to this one. I think it's rather irrelevant, considering the fact that the UL tests done for NIST made it clear that the steel wouldn't have collapsed.

Yes, I am. You're right, nothing to do with the Cardington fire tests. They have to do with the WTC towers (remember them?).

I'll concede that the Cardington fire tests managed to get the metal up to 900C. Now will -you- concede that the tests conducted to see if the WTC should have collapsed due to fire made it clear that they shouldn't have?

Probably because they were even more irrelevant then the Cardington fire tests...

See, if I'd been in your place, I would probably have said something like "do you have any evidence to support your claim?". But fanatics aren't really all that interested in hearing the opponents claims; they're much more interested in insisting that they're false, perhaps engaging in a few personal attacks and leaving it at that...

NIST is the one who started with the paint samples. 9/11 research is the one who brings them up. I'm simply quoting 9/11 research, which brings them up.

How many of those core column fragements did they analyse? Or did they ship them all off before getting a chance?

Not by a long shot.

Jim Hoffman, in his article "Building a Better Mirage - NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century" handily debunks the idea that 120 to 600 seconds is a trifling amount:
************************************************** *
Temperatures of 800 ºC to 1,100 ºC (1472 ºF to 2012 ºF) are normally observed only for brief times in building fires, in a phenomenon known as flashover. Flashover occurs when uncombusted gases accumulate near the ceilings and then suddenly ignite. Since flame consumes the pre-heated fuel-air mixture in an instant, very high temperatures are produced for a few seconds. Note that this temperature range includes the 900 ºC recorded using the megawatt super-burner, so they must have had to pour on quite a lot of jet fuel.

The first section of the Report describing the fires deceptively implies that 1,000 ºC (1832 ºF) temperatures (rarely seen in even momentary flashovers) were sustained, and that they were in the building's core.
************************************************** *
The article goes on, complete with some good graphics. You might want to take a look:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html

I find it hard to believe that it wouldn't affect his conclusions. And who is Ryan including when he states 'our conclusions'?

Hadn't dealt with this one before (the rest of my response to Mackey I just copied from this post).

I don't have an answer to the above as of yet. I would like to stated, however, that Ryan Mackey has been thoroughly debunked in the past, as the following article makes clear:
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/mackey/index.html

At the outset of the article, a good point is made:
***********************************************
Following the publication of these, Mackey generated Version 2 of his essay. More than 300 pages in length, this version has lengthy fallacy-rich sections addressing Thurston's and Ryan's articles almost line-by-line.

This review will never be a complete reply to Mackey's essay. An attempt to create such a reply would be misguided since it would lend legitimacy to Mackey's method: generating masses of criticism of the targeted information using arguments with superficial plausibility -- the emphasis being on quantity -- while employing a vast array of propagandistic techniques, factual distortions, and logical fallacies. The rationale behind that method seems clear enough: create a smokescreen of baseless arguments and distractions, clothed in claims of intellectual superiority and scientific legitimacy, such that the audience might be reassured that there is no need to look at the evidence of controlled demolition.
***********************************************

Perhaps I was at the time. Perhaps I even responded. Seriously, you expect me to remember all the responses to my posts since October? I have a response tree for all but the most recent posts in the WTC Collapses thread and I -started- doing one for the 'there can be only one' thread, but the thing is 2000+ posts. It'll be a while.

That statement is not evidence, it's simply a bunch of accusations.

 

The New York Times is a conspiracy site

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

?

Ah, the butt joints. I never dismissed it. I was merely trying to get across to you the fact that just because I didn't know anything about the butt joints didn't mean that I knew nothing concerning the WTC collapses.

 

Erik Swartz thought so.
“
In addition, the compound 1,3-diphenylpropane- [ 1',1'-(1,3-propanediyl)bis-benzene] was observed, and to our knowledge, this species has not previously been reported from ambient sampling. It has been associated with polystyrene and other plastics, which are in abundance at the WTC site.”

I can certainly believe he is wrong. Can you briefly explain why that is incorrect and how thermite is the real answer?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Truthers imply that all the time and I was making it clear that it wont cut it. When do truthers imply this? Scott and others repeat “No steel framed skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire!” like it is a daily prayer.

You can keep trying to defend the truther movement and paint them as reasonable but you would be kidding yourself. Do you think all the theories are sane?

Which conclusions are those?

Accumulating various pieces of unconvincing evidence doesn’t make them more convincing. Quantity does not equal quality. Jones has a deep seeded belief in something, as with his religious beliefs, and all the evidence he finds points to that belief and it could never be invalidated. So he sees thermite everywhere.

There is a standard that needs to be met. Jones is not meeting that standard. You can cry and moan about the evil sceptics but that isn’t going to change the situation.

No. My point still stands. Jones originally mentioned the selected quote in “Answers to Objections and Questions” and “Why Indeed the did the Twin Towers Collapse” after much ridicule, he removed it from “Why Indeed …” and has included the other quote from Swartz in "Answers to ..". It was addressed in his most recent attempt at credibility – his paper in the Environmentalist.

However he did use it originally. So I was not lied to at all. The point in contention was whether he had selectively quoted. He had.
Got it?

Really?
He’s addressed the criticisms I posted in this post, which you instantly discarded?

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2104858&postcount=185

While you are lecturing me on the scientific method ( although you don’t seem to know the meaning of the word ‘falsify’) , perhaps you could comment on some of those links.

Ah so the anti-scepticism rambling drivel you filled this post with, is that part of the scientific method?

 

no it isn't, but what i hoped to achieve is recognition from you that your constant insults are a poor substitue for a reasonable discussion. nobody wins a shit throwing fight.

I don't have the time that you and scott have, so simply linking to masses of information will not get a response from me.