Last edited Thu Dec 5, 2013, 02:48 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! 
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read