9/11 Poll

[scott3x]

I didn't say that, so please don't put it in double quotes. Single quotes would be better, but it's not even a good paraphrase so wouldn't even apply there. I said that I doubt that you have the knowledge concerning structural engineering that Tony has. I never said that this made you "automatically wrong".

Whatever, we both know full well that I wasn't attributing you as having explicitly stated that, when I want to do that I use the:

I'll keep that in mind; but I actually didn't know. And I'm not even getting into anyone else reading it.

Something dumb someone said

Functionality.

Dumb is much better than 'stupid'. I still prefer flawed though .

I've read the work of physicists, such as Steven Jones. I quote a passage from a peer reviewed paper of his and all you can say is that he "laments" the fact that NIST doesn't model anything after the towers are supposedly "poised" for collapse? Next time, I hope you can actually read enough to determine why I bring up the point. It wasn't -that- much text.

Right, something that someone else (in this case KennyJC) has already addressed (and whose post you completely ignored).

Apparently you missed the post where I told Kenny that I'd try to ignore more of his posts. This after he called me a "troll". He should be grateful that I ignored his post; this way, he can claim that he's not 'feeding the troll'. Anyway, I might deign to look at it later. But it's clear that Kenny's generally the last person I'd want to respond to here.

And so readdressing it to raise much the same points, seemed redundant.

I guess I'll have to look at the thing..

Look Trippy, I made the statement. You can go on about how you were just commenting on my statement, but statements I make are a part of me.

No.
The simple fact of the matter is that all I said was "This statement is mind numbingly retarded"

Actaully, it was "mind numblingly stupid"...

not "You're mind numbingly retarded for making this statement".

They are two profoundly different things.

I disagree and I've stated why. Don't make me repeat my reasoning.

The second is clearly ad-hominem, the first is addressing the post.

Both are insulting in a crass way, when there's no need to be so.

I think it's clear that you were dead wrong in your claim...

Which claim?

Your claim that my point was "mind numblingly @&(&#".

but the most important point is, if you disagree with a statement a person makes, the best thing to do is to simply say that the statement is flawed (very flawed if you like) and then proceed to explain why.

And I did precisely that.

You were crass and no, you didn't initially explain why; I had to dig it out of you.

To use base insults such as the ones you used to describe my statement doesn't do anything but inflame the discussion.

Right, so me calling your statement stupid is insulting, but Tony calling me a shill isn't.

Tony simply believed that you might be one; I for one do believe that shills do in fact exist. I did tell Tony that I wasn't sure anyone in -this- forum is one, but I can't discount it. I personally think that real shills probably wouldn't be spending so much time on a relatively small internet forum, though.

 

[leopold]

Leopold, please show a video or photo of 2/3 of the perimeter standing in the North Tower after the collapse. I think you are quite mistaken here.

i've reveiwed two different sources of the second collapse.
in the first one the part remaining standing was in the location of the perimeter.
in the second one it's hard to tell exactly what it is that's left standing.
for some reason my CD player refuses to play the footage from "7 days in september".

 

[scott3x]

Trippy, are you even aware that the only people who apparently know the specifics of NIST's computer simulation settings is NIST itself? Steven Jones, in the aforementioned paper, addresses the issue quite well on page 37:

So how does the NIST team justify the WTC collapses, when actual models fail to collapse and there are zero examples of fire-caused high-rise collapses? Easy, NIST concocted computer-generated hypotheticals for very "severe" cases, called B and D (NIST, 2005, pp. 124-138). Of course, the details are rather hidden to us. And they omit consideration of the complete, rapid and symmetrical nature of the collapses.

Indeed, NIST makes the startling admission in a footnote on page 80 of their Final Report:

The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence", although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached...​

(NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12; emphasis added.)

Again, on page 142, NIST admits their computer simulation only proceeds until the building is "poised for collapse", thus ignoring any data from that time on:

The results were a simulation of the structural deterioration of each tower from the time of aircraft impact to the time at which the building became unstable, i.e., was poised for collapse. ...​

(NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.)​

Clearly yourself, nor Stephen Jones understand what NIST was trying to do with its models...​

No, Kenny, you're the one who clearly doesn't understand...

Instead you stand by like a creationist whinging about gaps in the fossil record. You don't need a COMPLETE record in science to understand a basic dominant theory.

Look Kenny, if this were something like a creationist issue, I really don't think you'd have the quatity of scientists, architects, etc. that disbelieve the official story. Instead, in this case, it's the official story that most closely resembles a creationist perspective.

Let this be a perfect example of how tin hatters like yourself twist and distort quotes to try to fit your irrational beliefs rather than what the person (or NIST) was actually talking about. You can read NIST's letter for yourself to read the comment put back into context, at 911proof.com/NIST.pdf (it's the last paragraph on page 3, continuing onto page 4):

"NIST carried its analysis to the point where the buildings reached global instability. At this point, because of the magnitude of the deflections and the number of failures occuring, the computer models are not able to converge on a solution. ... As we mentioned previously, we are not able to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

They never did a collapse analysis. They got to "poised for collapse" in their tweaked simulations and then they dropped the ball.

The 10,000 page NIST report describes in great depth exactly what caused the buildings to collapse,

How much of it have you read Kenny? I have a feeling that the answer is precious little. Steven Jones demolished NIST's arguments and all you can do is refer to an irrelevant excerpt and the page count of the report?

but ends when the top section of the buildings falls and "global collapse" begins. At this point, the collapse itself was so chaotic that it is IMPOSSIBLE for even the most powerful supercomputers to map exactly the distribution of each column as it fell,

You quoting from NIST's report? I doubt it. Look, the reason it's "impossible" for NIST to do a proper simulation of a fire induced collapse is because the fires simply couldn't do it. They had to twist the laws of physics to even get it to "poised for collapse". In the case of the WTC 7 they actually managed to create a clearly flawed simulation of collapse, but just looking at it with a skeptical eye should make it clear how flawed it was. Once again, I ask you to actually read what Steven Jones said. His arguments are quite good and you've done absolutely nothing to discredit them.

No enormous building has ever collapsed like this before.

Well, the twin towers were certainly rather unusual demolitions, but nevertheless doable demos, but WTC 7 was a classic case. Oh, wait, you're still under the false impression that they were fire induced, right?​

 

[Trippy]

Not again. Must you always use such crass language?

I speak my mind.
I tend to not be politically correct.
If you have a problem with this, there's always the ignore list, but as far as I'm concerned, you go down that path, because I no longer have the ability to address the arguments you post against me in any meaningful manner, you loose the privelege of referring to anything i've said.

I'm attacking nothing; I'm simply stating that I believe your knowledge of structural engineering is rather limited. Do you see -me- use words such as "bullshit" and "mind numblingly stupid"? I think not.

An argument is a form of attack, irrespective of whether or not you're being insulting about it.
Your comments about wat you assume to be my level of education or knowledge on the issue constitute an ad-hominem argument, and they are nothing more than that.

The phrase Argumentum ad-hominem means 'argument against the man'.
ANY argument that is against (or attacks) the person making the comment.

Being insulting or not, or being true or not has nothing to do with it, if the argument is against the person, rather than the argument, it is, by definition, and ad-hominem argument (or attack).

The fact that I'm having this conversation leads me to believe that you don't actually understand the concept of argumentum ad-hominem.

Even the statement "Of course he would say that" constitutes an adhominem attack that is neither insulting, or factually inaccurate, but it is still, none the lest, an adhominem attack.

Besides which, what do you know about my education?
Precisely NOTHING that I haven't told you.

Tell me, how do you know I didn't get part way through a double major in structural/mechanical engineering and chemistry, before having an epiphany and deciding to refocus?

Is the truth concerning 9/11 something that only I would benefit from?

That wasn't what we were talking about. How does my passing some test posted by someone else prove anything?

It doesn't, the only thing it serves is to satisfy your ego.

I'm under no obligation to prove jack-shit to you, or anyone else.

Perhaps Tony can address this point; I know that Steven Jones brings up the fact that the WTC 7 had assymetrical loadings and yet the building fell down symetrically, but I don't know about the twin towers.

This is bullshit.
WTC7 didn't come straight down, it's obvious to anyone viewing the footage that the collapse progressed from left to right, this is not a symetrical collapse, it's asymetrical. If the collapse was symetrical, by definition, it could not have progressed from the left to the right. If it was symetrical, the left side of the building would have fallen at the same time as the right side, not to mention the total lack of information on the north-south symetry of the collapse.

Perhaps Tony could, I admit I can't at present.

So then you have no expertise for judging the validity of my arguments?

Nice.

What, pray tell, do you believe he took out of context? I have a strong feeling you really didn't digest what you read. I will once once again quote the reason that he felt this point was so important, bolding the punchline:

What about the subsequent complete, rapid and symmetrical collapse of the buildings? What about the observed squibs? What about the antenna dropping first in the North Tower? What about the molten metal observed in the basement areas in large pools in both Towers and WTC 7? Never mind all that: NIST did not discuss at all any data after the buildings were "poised for collapse". Well, some of us want to look at all the data, without "black-box" computer simulations that are "adjusted", perhaps to make them fit the desired outcome. A hypothesis which is non-refutable is non-scientific. On the other hand, Occam's razor suggests that the simplest explanation which addresses and satisfies all the evidence is most probably correct.​

You mean the molten metal that nobody other than conspiracy theorists has been able to find?
Or the molten metal under WTC6 from ammunition cooking off?
The puffs of compressed air from the buildings? I have yet to see anyone demonstate conclusively they're anything more than that.
As for the antenna dropping first, I actually doubt whether or not that actually happened, and strongly suspect that this might be a wrong headed assumption on Jones's part.
And as far as modelling only to the brink of collapse, that's already been explained to you.

Each of these points has been addressed/explained to you.

Repeating them doesn't make them any more correct, it just makes you look like a troll.

Probably because you've read so little of Steven Jones' work, and truly understood even less.

Feel free to keep your uninformed opinions to yourself.

This is no different to a creationist argument "If you had actually read the bible, you'd be able to see the truth of it".

 

[shaman_]

In the case of the WTC 7 they actually managed to create a clearly flawed simulation of collapse, but just looking at it with a skeptical eye should make it clear how flawed it was.

Perhaps, in your own words, you could explain what you saw as 'clearly flawed' when you had a look at the simulation.

 

[Trippy]

I'll keep that in mind; but I actually didn't know. And I'm not even getting into anyone else reading it.

Not my problem.

Dumb is much better than 'stupid'. I still prefer flawed though .

I don't care.

Apparently you missed the post where I told Kenny that I'd try to ignore more of his posts. This after he called me a "troll". He should be grateful that I ignored his post; this way, he can claim that he's not 'feeding the troll'. Anyway, I might deign to look at it later. But it's clear that Kenny's generally the last person I'd want to respond to here.

I still don't care, AND it's not my problem.

I guess I'll have to look at the thing..

You do that...

Actaully, it was "mind numblingly stupid"...

Whatever, my point is the same, the actually words used is actually irrelevant.

I disagree and I've stated why. Don't make me repeat my reasoning.

Your reasoning is wrong.

Both are insulting in a crass way, when there's no need to be so.

Beside the point, and completely your opnion.
In my opinion, the language I used was perfectly reasonable as an adjective.

Your claim that my point was "mind numblingly @&(&#".

A point I stand by. It is mind numbingly stupid, and you have still failed to grasp the significance of the matter.

No matter.

You were crass and no, you didn't initially explain why; I had to dig it out of you.

So what? None of this changes the fact that I was addressing your post, not you.

Tony simply believed that you might be one; I for one do believe that shills do in fact exist. I did tell Tony that I wasn't sure anyone in -this- forum is one, but I can't discount it. I personally think that real shills probably wouldn't be spending so much time on a relatively small internet forum, though.

He (still) levelled the accusation.

 

[KennyJC]

No, Kenny, you're the one who clearly doesn't understand...

Clearly. Especially when you make yourself look like a fool when you claim that slow squibs are due to demolition charges...

Look Kenny, if this were something like a creationist issue, I really don't think you'd have the quatity of scientists, architects, etc. that disbelieve the official story. Instead, in this case, it's the official story that most closely resembles a creationist perspective.

In fact, in structural engineering circles the consensus that the towers collapse was fire enduced is every bit as strong as evolution is to biologists.

I issued you a challenge to raise the question in a reputable structural engineering forum, but you obviously didn't want to. If you really want to pretent there is a large circile of engineers who doubt fire enduced collapse, why don't you want to prove me wrong on this point?

They never did a collapse analysis.

Yes, and of course this is because no computer could accurately replicate the pancaking. It's also not in the interests of NIST to do so. They were charged to find out WHY the towers collapsed and they did so. Developing some asinine pound for pound top to bottom collapse was surpluss to requirements, nor would it have been possible anyway.

They got to "poised for collapse" in their tweaked simulations and then they dropped the ball.

Of course they tweaked their simulations and they did so based on thousands of pictures an video images, eye witness testimony and not to mention help from experts outside of nist:

They contracted of independent experts to look at their models and see if they made sense:
http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/
They also opened up their drafts for comment prior to final release. You will notice that one or two of your idols are on the list:
http://wtc.nist.gov/comments08/
Then there were several lengthy conferences to gain insight from experts in a variety of areas:
http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/presentations905.htm

So you see, these computer models really are as good as it's going to get.

How much of it have you read Kenny? I have a feeling that the answer is precious little.

Not that it matters whether I've read it or not, you clearly haven't either. I've read plenty of excerpts and also read several reviews on the report. I know enough about science to know that if something isn't ridiculed by the scientific community, it has to have its merits.

Steven Jones demolished NIST's arguments and all you can do is refer to an irrelevant excerpt and the page count of the report?

It wasn't an irrelevent excerpt since it explained WHY NIST did not provide a full computer model for the collapse. And Stephen Jones did NOT demolish NISTs arguments. Steven Jones can be proven to be a liar by a casual researcher. Remember when he came out and admitted WTC7 did not fall at free fall speed? He admitted to lying about it because he "did not want to disappoint our followers".

You quoting from NIST's report? I doubt it. Look, the reason it's "impossible" for NIST to do a proper simulation of a fire induced collapse is because the fires simply couldn't do it.

Surely even you can see that you just said something moronic. Fire initiated the collapse and the NIST model proved that. Fire was irrelevant to what followed after the collapse initiation, thus your comment makes no sense at all.

They had to twist the laws of physics to even get it to "poised for collapse". In the case of the WTC 7 they actually managed to create a clearly flawed simulation of collapse, but just looking at it with a skeptical eye should make it clear how flawed it was. Once again, I ask you to actually read what Steven Jones said. His arguments are quite good and you've done absolutely nothing to discredit them.

His arguments have gained him no respect in scientific circles, so it's apparently irrelevant if I do so. Nevertheless, I have no idea why you think they twisted their computer models to be against "the laws of physics".

Well, the twin towers were certainly rather unusual demolitions, but nevertheless doable demos, but WTC 7 was a classic case. Oh, wait, you're still under the false impression that they were fire induced, right?

Again, ask any demolition expert if the WTC 1 and 2 had any hallmarks of a controlled demolition. It didn't. What controlled demolitions pancake a building top to bottom? Without blast events seen and explosions loud enough to shatter glass? No squibs, flashes; Impossible to organise in 267 floors of busy office space without raising suspicion and also no logical motive to do so.

 

[leopold]

i believe something must be said about models at this point.
there are 3 basic types:
theoretical, as designed, and as constructed.
i believe as designed should be assumed except when explicitly stated otherwise.
the as designed and as constructed models may, or may not, agree with one another depending on how closely the builders followed the blueprint.
this difference may also have allowed the "tweaking" NIST did.

 

[psikeyhackr]

No, what he has are toys.

At such tiny scales the kinetic energies in his models are neglegable. It's like a toddler trying to replicate car damage from a freeway collision with a toy car.

.
Here are videos of some toys:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWsxvwlxCik

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmKdA6L_MWk&NR=1

But the laws of physics don't care what people call objects.

The physics of a TOY propeller driven airplane is the same as that of a real one. But a toy plane is going to have a higher thrust to weight ratio therefore it will be able to do things that real prop planes cannot, like fly straight up or hover. A 1/10 scale plane is going to have 1/1000th the volume of the real plane. And if the toy plane can do 100 mph then the real plane should do 1000 mph. But that is faster than the speed of sound and real propeller driven planes can't do that.

So calling my models "TOYS" means nothing in terms of how physics really works. That is nothing but psychological gamesmanship in the debating competition. What I have noticed consistently is that the people who simply try to denigrate my videos say nothing about the frames that I put in asking about the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level of the WTC towers. My models were built to show that varying the distribution of mass changed the behavior of the model, therefore that information is necessary to analyze what truly happened in the real towers. But that brings up the information necessary to analyze the REAL PHYSICS involved. Accurate models that behave according to the real physical scale of the towers cannot possibly be built without that information.

So why aren't all of the EXPERTS at every engineering school demanding that information? But won't they look pretty stupid if they say it is necessary now after not pointing that out since 2002?

These toys are too complex and expensive for our engineering schools to have built.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXAerZUw4Wc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

psik

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tell me, how do you know I didn't get part way through a double major in structural/mechanical engineering and chemistry, before having an epiphany and deciding to refocus?

Well for one you couldn't have gotten too far in the structural/mechanical engineering area as 90% of those courses are given in the last two years of the curriculum.

WTC7 didn't come straight down, it's obvious to anyone viewing the footage that the collapse progressed from left to right, this is not a symetrical collapse, it's asymetrical. If the collapse was symetrical, by definition, it could not have progressed from the left to the right. If it was symetrical, the left side of the building would have fallen at the same time as the right side, not to mention the total lack of information on the north-south symetry of the collapse.

What videos are you watching?

You mean the molten metal that nobody other than conspiracy theorists has been able to find?
Or the molten metal under WTC6 from ammunition cooking off?

What do you think caused the extremely high surface temperatures at the locations of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 found when infrared photos were taken days after the collapses? There were no high surface temps at WTC 6's location.

What was the orange yellow substance pouring out of the northeast corner of WTC 2 just prior to it's collapse if it wasn't molten metal?

 

[psikeyhackr]

Besides which, what do you know about my education?
Precisely NOTHING that I haven't told you.

Tell me, how do you know I didn't get part way through a double major in structural/mechanical engineering and chemistry, before having an epiphany and deciding to refocus?

This is no different to a creationist argument "If you had actually read the bible, you'd be able to see the truth of it".

.
Who gives a damn about courses, degrees or bibles?

All of the structural engineers have to explain why they haven't been talking about the distribution of mass in skyscrapers for the last SEVEN YEARS. That distribution must be properly determined for the for the buildings to hold themselves up. The issue is no longer who did it or why. The issue is why supposedly educated people have let this bullshit drag on for so long.

Apparently a lot of people with degrees are either STUPID or LIARS or BOTH!

psik

 

[leopold]

What was the orange yellow substance pouring out of the northeast corner of WTC 2 just prior to it's collapse if it wasn't molten metal?

the showers of sparks?
a shorted electrical conduit.

i don't recall anything orange "pouring out" of either 1, 2, or 7.

so, how many types of bombs are you people professing the perpetrators used?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

the showers of sparks?
a shorted electrical conduit.

i don't recall anything orange "pouring out" of either 1, 2, or 7.

so, how many types of bombs are you people professing the perpetrators used?

Have you actually watched the film of this occurring? Here is a very good video of it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmuzyWC60eE.

Showers of sparks from a shorted electrical conduit would not have the propensity to flow downward while also maintaining their incandesence for several hundred feet of the fall.

 

[Trippy]

Well for one you couldn't have gotten too far in the structural/mechanical engineering area as 90% of those courses are given in the last two years of the curriculum.

Your unfounded opinion.
As it happens, I was doing a double major/double degree, but I dropped one of the subjects (ironically, the subject I was farthest through) in what should have been my final year.

What videos are you watching?

Same videos as everybody else (AFAIK).
All of the videos i've seen have been from the north(?) (I can never remember to be honest) and show the east pent house slipping below the roofline before the west penthouse, then the west penthouse, and very shortly thereafter the rest of the building falling.
They also show what appears to be like a ripple of breaking windows that spreads from towards the bottom of the east side, up and to the west.

This hardly suggests symmetrical collapse to me.

As for the north-south symmetry thing, all of the videos i've seen of the actual collapse seem to have been looking fairly squarely at the north face of WTC7.

What do you think caused the extremely high surface temperatures at the locations of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 found when infrared photos were taken days after the collapses? There were no high surface temps at WTC 6's location.

My first guess would be underground fires - which would seem to be back up by the people that survived, and were able to be rescued from the rubble.

In the case of WTC 7, I imagine it migt have something to do with the diesel that was in the building burning.

In the case of Towers 1&2, each tower had 150 tons of extra aluminium in it, as well as the aluminium from the facades.

Aluminium burns.

Then there's the 100 odd floors of office combustables that we know were in that space...

What was the orange yellow substance pouring out of the northeast corner of WTC 2 just prior to it's collapse if it wasn't molten metal?

Although I didn't directly state that this wasn't molten metal, I can see how you might choose to interpret what I said that way - we were specifically talking about the presence of molten metal after the collapse.

However, my recollection is that Aluminium, like all metals, experiences blackbody radiation, and thus will glo like that when heated to an appropriate temperature HOWEVER, just before you go quoting a specific conspiracy theory paper which I am aware of, I am also aware that if the oxide layer of the aluminium is intact (it's possible to melt aluminium and have its oxide layer intact, in fact as I recall, this is what happens under ordinary circumstances) it gives the aluminium a silvery appearance when it's molten, it is, however, possible to disrupt this and cause the aluminium to glow like that.
There's also the possibility of lead from the UPS's, and the possibility of Babbit Metal used (AFAIK) in the elevators, so there are plenty of sources of metal that melt at low temperatures which could have given rise to what was observed.
As for the timing, that may well be one of the first indicators of the impending collapse - you say it was a cocked up thermite charge, so well duh, I say that it potentially gives us useful information about the changes in the way the floors tilted and bowed immeadiately prior to the collapse.

 

[Trippy]

Your unfounded opinion.
As it happens, I was doing a double major/double degree, but I dropped one of the subjects (ironically, the subject I was farthest through) in what should have been my final year.

To be clear, in what should have been my final year of University, I followed my family to the other end of the country (we moved, with style), and transfered to another university.

Two things happened that year.
1. I took on too much work.
2. I ended up making the decision to drop one of my majors, because I became bored with it (I'm still not sure whether that was because of the change in teaching styles, or a change in interests).

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Your unfounded opinion.
As it happens, I was doing a double major/double degree, but I dropped one of the subjects (ironically, the subject I was farthest through) in what should have been my final year.

I think the real question is whether structural/mechanical or civil engineering was your other major. Was it?

Same videos as everybody else (AFAIK).
All of the videos i've seen have been from the north(?) (I can never remember to be honest) and show the east pent house slipping below the roofline before the west penthouse, then the west penthouse, and very shortly thereafter the rest of the building falling. This hardly suggests symmetrical collapse to me.

The west penthouse starts moving down at just about the same time as the exterior of the building. This sort of pours cold water on the inside all collapsed first and then the exterior.

As for the north-south symmetry thing, all of the videos i've seen of the actual collapse seem to have been looking fairly squarely at the north face of WTC7.

The collapse is symmetric north south at least for the first couple hundred feet and then it does lean southward.

My first guess would be underground fires - which would seem to be back up by the people that survived, and were able to be rescued from the rubble.

I don't know of any survivors from the towers who were underground and would have witnessed fires. The only survivors from the collapses that were still in the building were in a stairwell of WTC 1 near ground level.

In the case of WTC 7, I imagine it migt have something to do with the diesel that was in the building burning.

The problem here is that most of the diesel fuel was recovered from the tanks under WTC 7's first floor.

 

[Trippy]

I think the real question is whether structural/mechanical or civil engineering was your other major. Was it?

I've given out more than enough personal information on this thread.
Yes, i'm being deliberately evasive, because based on my experiences in this thread, I anticipate that irrespective of whether I answer this yes, or no, my answer will lead to adhominem attacks.

The west penthouse starts moving down at just about the same time as the exterior of the building. This sort of pours cold water on the inside all collapsed first and then the exterior.

No it doesn't.
First, you say 'just about'.
As I recall (and) according to the NIST timeline, there was a gap (in time).
Second, once the east penthouse is gone, and the collapse has progressed far enough from the bottom on the east, to the top on the west for the west penthouse to start moving, how much of the interior structure do you think is still standing in any meaningful, useful way?

The collapse is symmetric north south at least for the first couple hundred feet and then it does lean southward.

And of course you have proof of this right?

I don't know of any survivors from the towers who were underground and would have witnessed fires. The only survivors from the collapses that were still in the building were in a stairwell of WTC 1 near ground level.

I didn't say they witnessed it.
My recollection is though that they were put at risk by it.

The problem here is that most of the diesel fuel was recovered from the tanks under WTC 7's first floor.

That's nice - how about those 40-odd floors of combustable office materials?

 

[leopold]

Have you actually watched the film of this occurring? Here is a very good video of it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmuzyWC60eE.
Showers of sparks from a shorted electrical conduit would not have the propensity to flow downward while also maintaining their incandesence for several hundred feet of the fall.

it appears that entire corner of the building was "burning hot" because of the grey smoke from the windows.
various floors of WTC 1 and 2 was used for storage space.
it's hard telling what this stuff is.

 

[scott3x]

Not again. Must you always use such crass language?

I speak my mind.
I tend to not be politically correct.

I'm certainly not politically correct at times, but I'm fairly careful not to use crass language, especially online where one has time to think carefully about what one will say.

If you have a problem with this, there's always the ignore list, but as far as I'm concerned, you go down that path, because I no longer have the ability to address the arguments you post against me in any meaningful manner, you loose the privelege of referring to anything i've said.

You can't take away my privilege of referring to things you've said, but you can certainly ignore any responses I make. Yes, I can ignore your posts as well, but you're about the most civil of the bunch here, which is why I've been spending more time responding to your posts then any other official story supporter here. What I tend to do is take breaks from all the insults for a while and come back when I've cooled down from it all.

 

[scott3x]

I'm attacking nothing; I'm simply stating that I believe your knowledge of structural engineering is rather limited. Do you see -me- use words such as "bullshit" and "mind numblingly stupid"? I think not.

An argument is a form of attack, irrespective of whether or not you're being insulting about it.

Alright, let's go with your argument for a second; all I'm asking for is that there be more civility in the rules of engagement, if you will.

Your comments about what you assume to be my level of education or knowledge on the issue constitute an ad-hominem argument, and they are nothing more than that.

I am simply informing you in a civil way of my beliefs concerning your knowledge. You have certainly done so in my case, but in much more insulting terms.

The phrase Argumentum ad-hominem means 'argument against the man'. ANY argument that is against (or attacks) the person making the comment.

I'm simply stating what I believe to be your level of knowledge concerning structural engineering. I don't consider that to be an attack.

Being insulting or not, or being true or not has nothing to do with it,

I disagree, on both counts.

if the argument is against the person, rather than the argument, it is, by definition, and ad-hominem argument (or attack).

Again, I point out the fact that when you insult a person's argument, you are also insulting the person making it.

The fact that I'm having this conversation leads me to believe that you don't actually understand the concept of argumentum ad-hominem.

Even the statement "Of course he would say that" constitutes an adhominem attack that is neither insulting, or factually inaccurate, but it is still, none the lest, an adhominem attack.

Look, I'm not really interested in the technical lingo. I'm simply saying that it would be much appreciated if you could stop using words such as "stupid" against my arguments. There are other far less insulting terms that could be used.

Besides which, what do you know about my education?
Precisely NOTHING that I haven't told you.

No need for caps. Anyway, you've stated a fair amount, and more so now with Tony.

Tell me, how do you know I didn't get part way through a double major in structural/mechanical engineering and chemistry, before having an epiphany and deciding to refocus?

I don't know, but you can certainly fill me in if you wish.