Creative Speculation

AZCat

(8,345 posts)

15. Oh, I don't?

Wed Dec 4, 2013, 09:29 PM

Dec 2013

It's interesting that you assume everyone else has the same level of ignorance as you.

No, you don't need an official energy budget. Why would you? Are you a building design professional with a vested interest in preventing future collapses? If not, then you're not a relevant party to the discussion. If you are, then it's likely (unless you're incompetent) obvious to you that the available energy is in excess of what was required and an official energy budget is not required.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

64 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

North Tower Exploding... [View all] wildbilln864 Dec 2011 OP

"Explosive event" = "explosion" = "controlled demolition" William Seger Dec 2011 #1

NIST doesn't explain what he's talking about. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #6

Chandler doesn't explain what he's talking about, either William Seger Dec 2013 #7

Chandler does not need to explain them. He's just engaging in observation, Ace Acme Dec 2013 #8

He's engaging in sloppy, agenda-driven observation William Seger Dec 2013 #9

Your explanation of the squibs is contrary to the gas laws. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #10

What was the pressure rating of the ductwork in the towers? AZCat Dec 2013 #11

I don't know and you don't know. Maybe we should ask NIST for an investigation that tells us. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #13

Oh, I don't? AZCat Dec 2013 #15

I need an official energy budget so I can evaluate whether the claims Ace Acme Dec 2013 #16

No, you don't. AZCat Dec 2013 #17

Who are you to say I'm not relevant? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #18

Your inability to digest the information in the NIST report dictates your irrelevancy. AZCat Dec 2013 #19

Digesting the information in the report is not the problem. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #20

The NIST reports also didn't include an explanation of basic math. AZCat Dec 2013 #24

The NIST reports also didn't include a lot of things. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #25

I think you're confusing the behavior... AZCat Dec 2013 #26

What's chaotic? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #27

I think you have a problem with your logic. AZCat Dec 2013 #28

You have a problem with yours. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #29

Why would any model not converge? AZCat Dec 2013 #30

"Models", Mr. McGoo, not "model". Ace Acme Dec 2013 #31

So that'd be a "I don't know what it means" answer... AZCat Dec 2013 #34

The models did not converge on a single solution. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #38

What does THAT mean? AZCat Dec 2013 #39

As I said, it implies that the actual collapse was too orderly for the models to recreate. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #40

Aaaaand... AZCat Dec 2013 #41

Same thing as with WTC7. The collapse was more orderly than the models. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #43

Whatever. AZCat Dec 2013 #44

Oh I see. The failure of the models to converge is my fault Ace Acme Dec 2013 #45

The failure to understand why a model might not converge is your fault. AZCat Dec 2013 #47

I already told you the meaning of the failure to converge. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #49

Yeah, and it was wrong. AZCat Dec 2013 #50

Says the anonymous internet poster who's so ignorant of the issues Ace Acme Dec 2013 #51

I didn't create the science or terminology of modeling. AZCat Dec 2013 #52

You're just squirting stinky smoke. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #54

Is this your response to being called out for your lack of knowledge? AZCat Dec 2013 #55

Some people wave Big Fat Books to give the illusion of support for their empty claims. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #59

I don't need to wave a "Big Fat Book". AZCat Dec 2013 #60

Right, you don't need no stinking badges. Empty claims is all you need. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #63

Empty? Says who? AZCat Dec 2013 #64

By the way - you seem to have a bad habit of editing your posts (usually multiple times). AZCat Dec 2013 #53

Writing is rewriting. Only bots with libraries of canned responses get it right the 1st time nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #56

Really? Most of the rest of us don't seem to have that problem. AZCat Dec 2013 #57

I'm not most of y'all, thank God. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #58

Too bad. AZCat Dec 2013 #61

Post removed Post removed Dec 2013 #62

"Handwaving" William Seger Dec 2013 #12

I ignore the evidence-free handwaving of anonymous internet posters Ace Acme Dec 2013 #14

Ah, so you judge reaoning by who presents it rather than validity? William Seger Dec 2013 #21

You're forgetting that NIST doesn't give me any arguments to ignore. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #22

If you can say, "NIST doesn't give me any arguments to ignore," you've ignored a lot William Seger Dec 2013 #32

You must have a secretary to type your blather. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #33

Aw... William Seger Dec 2013 #35

I don't need to demonstrate that it's nonsence after YOU'VE demonstrated that. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #36

You keep getting more and more wrong. nt greyl Dec 2013 #37

It's obvious A.A. is out of his element. AZCat Dec 2013 #42

I'm very much in my element. Slapping down bullshitters. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #46

Look inward, dear A.A. AZCat Dec 2013 #48

You have a heavy responsibility now, Bill jberryhill Dec 2011 #2

The video makes the Bush Administration's "investigation" of 9-11 appear crooked. K&R (nt) T S Justly Dec 2011 #3

Certainly it makes the report look incomplete. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #23

Excellent video - thanks for posting CrawlingChaos Dec 2011 #4

You're back supporting massive, silent explosions cpwm17 Dec 2011 #5