= new reply since forum marked as read
You ignore arguments by anonymous internet posters because they're anonymous; you ignore arguments by qualified engineers like Bazant and Greening because their arguments weren't included in the NIST report; and you ignore arguments in the NIST report because they're a dishonest pack of government shills.
But you accept arguments by Gourley and Chandler even after flaws are pointed out to you that you can't rectify, because... they are conspiracists like you?
And this is your idea of a superior epistemology?
> Who exactly measured the squibs and found that they accelerated?
Many people have, but here's an animated gif that I did myself several years ago, showing that the "squib" undergoes three separate acceleration phases, implying a varying pneumatic flow:
Careful observation should tell you that something similar could be done with the "squibs" in Chandler's video, since there is at least one noticeable acceleration phase. (And if you want to say you don't see it, I'll do a gif and we'll see who is the more careful observer.) For contrast, here is an actual controlled demolition squib. Notice that after appearing, the expansion is strictly decelerating, for the obvious logical reason that I gave you but you insist on ignoring:
> Your argument about the shell of WTC7 made no sense. You claimed that the non-structural curtain wall that hung from the perimeter framing stood even when that framing distorted and fell down.
That's simply not true, "Ace." I made it clear several times that I believe the interior framing fell away from the exterior framing -- i.e. the exterior columns and beams -- which held its box shape because of the rigidity of the attached curtain walls. Maybe you still don't get it, but it's hard to tell with you where your lack of comprehension ends and the blatantly disingenuous arguments begin.
> Life is too short to address the bogus arguments of bullshitters whose preference for bullying over persuasion trashed their credibility.
LOL, that's a lame excuse considering how you apparently find it impossible to stop digging yourself deeper into every losing argument you engage in. Obviously you have plenty of time to beat your dead horses, but you're too busy to think of good reasons for why you're doing that? Fascinating.
> Most (and probably all) of the WTC towers' core columns were accessible at some point from the elevator shafts. Only by restricting the universe of columns to those accessible at the floor where you believe the collapses began can you give the illusion of having an argument.
What a pantload. If conspiracists want to claim that it wouldn't have been hard to rig the core columns for a controlled demolition because "most" of them were easily accessible from elevator shafts, then the columns in the areas where the collapses began are the ones that would need to be rigged! When confronted with clear evidence that that wasn't true -- that you were parroting bullshit you read on a "truther" site without checking it out -- you tried to chicken-shit your way out of it by saying you weren't claiming any controlled demolition theories, you were just sayin' "most" of the columns were accessible, somewhere, which meant, uh, absolutely nothing. And now you have the chutzpah to say I'm the one who is trying to create an "illusion of having an argument!" You are, without a doubt, the biggest hypocrite I have ever encountered anywhere on the net.
> I can comprehend the concrete pulverization just fine. I want NIST to explain it to me. I don't want to hear it from obsessive and anonymous propagandists.
Bullshit, anyone who believes that's what you want hasn't been paying attention. You've made it clear that you don't trust anything coming out of NIST because you think they are dishonest. You find some excuse, no matter how lame, for ignoring anyone who challenges your 9/11 fantasies, even while pretending to be the heroic objective investigator. And anyway, you have yet to present anything remotely resembling a rational reason why the concrete pulverization has anything to do with anything. When confronted with how idiotic it is to believe the alleged perps planted massive amounts of magical silent explosives all over occupied office floors just to pointlessly crush a lot of concrete, you tried to chicken-shit your way out of that implicit argument by saying you hadn't made any such claim, you were just mystified about energy, or something, but you definitely don't want "obsessive and anonymous propagandists" to explain it to you.
But, hey, don't worry about me being "frustrated" by someone who is so determined to not understand my arguments -- "amused" would be more accurate. 
Last edited Thu Dec 5, 2013, 03:48 PM - Edit history (4)
They claim they did not analyze the collapses.
I ignore Bazant because his theories bear no resemblance to what actually happened so they're irrelevant, because rely on absurd assumptions, and because the fact that NIST gives him no love whatsoever validates those observations.
I might read Greening if he were published in a peer-reviewed journal, but when people link to anonymous propaganda websites I have no way of knowing if what I'm reading is what Greening really wrote, or perhaps something he wrote years ago and has since repudiated.
Where did I say I accepted arguments by Gourley and Chandler?
How can any reasonable person expect another reasonable person to accept scientific measurements taken by an anonymous internet poster? Especially one so obviously as biased as yourself? Who would expect such a stupid thing? And how can we respect the judgment of someone who does?
I guess I misunderstood your argument about WTC7, which is not surprising since it seemed to be deliberately presented in a verbose and confusing way. It doesn't change the point of the argument: NIST's WTC7 animations bore no resemblance to what happened. Nor did they bear any resemblance to what you claim happened. And again, how can you expect anyone to give a bitter fig about an anonymous internet poster's wacky theories?
I'm not beating any dead horses. I am asserting irrefutable FACTS: 273 of the widows' 300 questions were never answered;and NIST only gave us half a report about the towers, dodging the ten essential mysteries of the collapses by cutting off their analysis when the collapse began. For you and AZ to accept the injustice of the first and the scientific illegitimacy of the second is very revealing. How can anyone who believes in democracy do so?
The accessibility of the core columns pertains to the demolition of the cores, "William". That's part of the collapses, part of what NIST refuses to touch. Initiation of the collapses is a different animal;NIST makes the distinction between the two phases. So why can't I? FEMA said a few failing truss anchors could initiate the collapse--and that absurd notion was prevailing wisdom for three years. Your demand that all facts pertain to all questions is just an hysterical excuse to discard facts. The fact that most of the main structural columns were accessible for most of their length from the elevator shafts hardly "means nothing" as you claim. It means that the claim that demolition of the buildings was impractical is a lie.
I never said I "don't trust anything coming out of NIST". I cite them as an authority often. For instance section 6.14.4 where they say the towers came down "essentially in free fall". The part where they say WTC1 fell in less than 12 seconds.
I never claimed to be an heroic investigator. Why should anyone care about the investigations of anonymous internet posters? I leave that kind of nonsense to fools like you--who think we should believe your handwaving proclamations about mysteries where NIST feared to tread.
The pulverization of the concrete has everything to do with the collapses because, as anyone with any basic concept of the first law of thermodynamics knows, the energy necessary to pulverize the concrete must be subtracted from the kinetic energy available to take the building down, and would have slowed the collapses accordingly. That's why we need the official energy budget that AZ sneers at.
I never said anyone pulverized the concrete with explosives. Where would you get such a silly idea?
Why are you so obsessive and so emotional about these things? Would you spend hundreds of hours of your time arguing with Creationists or global warming deniers? What kind of warped person will do that? You think you have the truth. Isn't that enough? Why must you argue with people you regard as fools? My motivation is quite clear. I think I don't have the truth, and I want to have the truth, and I want to facilitate the self-discrediting of those who want to keep it from me.
And you are doing a great job of self-discrediting, by the way. Thank you very much! 
